Human Security Norms in East Asia

Yoichi Mine, Oscar A. Gómez, Ako Muto, Yoichi Mine, Oscar A. Gómez, Ako Muto

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9783319972466
• eBook ISBN:
  9783319972473
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Asian Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Provides a comprehensive map of the human security challenges faced by countries in the East Asian region

Analyzes responses from more than one hundred interviews of politicians, activists, scholars, business people, and journalists

Advances research on norm dynamics developed in the past two decades on international organizations

© The Author(s) 2019

Yoichi Mine, Oscar A. Gómez and Ako Muto (eds.)Human Security Norms in East AsiaSecurity, Development and Human Rights in East Asiahttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97247-3_1

Begin Abstract

1. Human Security in East Asia: Assembling a Puzzle

Yoichi Mine¹ , Oscar A. Gómez² and Ako Muto²

(1)

Graduate School of Global Studies, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan

(2)

Research Institute, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Tokyo, Japan

Yoichi Mine (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

Oscar A. Gómez

Email: [email protected]

Ako Muto

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

1.1 Human Security and Norm Dynamics

1.1.1 An Indelible Agenda

Human security was advocated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) after the demise of the Cold War (UNDP 1993, 2–3; 1994, Chap. 2). A quarter of a century has passed since then, and some who were once enthusiastic about this concept no longer discuss it. However, when some lost interest, others took up the idea in other places.¹ It may thus seem to have faded out from time to time, but in reality, it did not. Where does this persistence come from?

Human security is an international norm concerned with global public interest, or a concept that aims to be an international norm such as human rights, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and corporate social responsibility (CSR). In general terms, norms denote codes of desirable (or undesirable) behaviors shared in a specific community. One of the strongest norms common in human society is that “homicide is evil.” Even when the death penalty and war are allowed, they are considered exceptions to this norm. Written norms become statutes and formal regulations, while social consciousness supporting specific codes of conduct can also be called norms.² Normative sciences not only describe facts but also inquire into “how the object ought to be,” covering logic, ethics, and aesthetics. The study of norms can be part of such an intellectual exercise: we describe and evaluate what people consider to be appropriate behaviors, nationally and internationally.

Let us try to answer the above question. Why does human security not fade out? It is because the international community needs this concept. Though not explicitly using this term, the UN can be thought of as being originally organized to realize human security beyond international security. The originality of human security as an international norm lies in its attempt to shift the referent object of security from “states” to “individuals” and to urge various actors to conduct themselves accordingly. The two world wars in the twentieth century claimed large numbers of human lives and stripped as many of their dignity and property in the all-out wars between nation states. In order not to repeat such calamities, the UN conferred on its Security Council the authority to limit the sovereignty of states threatening international peace and security and to impose military sanctions under international law. In the UN, state sovereignty is not necessarily an inviolable sanctuary, even though “non-interference” remains a major norm in international society.

It is often assumed that Hobbes’ “realism” and Kant’s “idealism” are poles apart. However, if the nation-state is invented to overcome the havoc caused by the war of every man against every man (Hobbes 1996 [originally 1651]), and a world federation is shaped to avoid the devastation caused by the war of every state against every other state (Kant 1977 [originally 1795]), these two world views are conterminous in a single spectrum. In this light, the ultimate objective of both nation states and international organizations is to realize the security of individuals by ensuring freedom for all people. Therefore, it is of pressing importance to evaluate government functions on the extent to which they serve this objective. Although we cannot deny the crucial roles of nation states and national governments, the strong nation states are those that effectively serve the security of individuals living in their territories, not those that demand citizens’ sacrifice for state security too easily. In a nutshell, the normative message of human security boils down to a powerful proposition that the ultimate objective of governance at all levels is to provide security (or ensure freedoms) for every individual.

1.1.2 Human Security as a “Norm-Complex”

The core message of human security is thus very simple, but many other intentions and meanings have been subsumed in this concept along the way. If the objective is the security of individual persons, we must be able to characterize the core constitutive elements of such a secure state, as well as the principal means to achieve that goal, which can be described as norms themselves. Human security is being formed as a “norm-complex” in which different existing norms are combined and nested under the umbrella of human security (Kurusu 2005).³ This hybrid nature of human security is observable in the consensus-based resolution on the definition of human security adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in September 2012.⁴

That resolution stipulates that human security is “an approach to assist Member States in identifying and addressing widespread and cross-cutting challenges to survival, livelihood and dignity of their people.” According to the resolution, a common understanding on the notion of human security includes: “(a) The right of people to live in freedom and dignity , free from poverty and despair. All individuals, especially vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential.” The resolution then enumerates certain qualifications of the concept: “(b) Human security calls for people-centred, comprehensive, context-specific and prevention-oriented responses that strengthen the protection and empowerment of all people and all communities,” “(c) Human security recognizes the interlinkages between peace, development and human rights, and equally considers civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,” “(d) The notion of human security is distinct from the responsibility to protect and its implementation,” and “(e) Human security does not entail the threat or the use of force or coercive measures” and “does not replace State security.” Human security thus makes much of “national ownership,” local contexts and bottom-up initiatives, and pays respect to all generations of human rights.

Based on the characterization of human security in past documents, including this UNGA resolution as well as the Commission on Human Security (2003) and UNDP (1993, 1994), we defined the practice of human security for the present research as follows: to ensure three freedoms (freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom to live in dignity) for individuals and communities vulnerable to large-scale and cross-border threats, by combining protection from above and empowerment from below. Although this definition may still feel too complicated, with careful attention, one finds that the concept has been made dynamic by incorporating new elements into a set of established norms. Let us discuss three points.

First, while taking the concept of “freedoms from fear and want” as a given, human security brought in the third element, “dignity.” Realizing a world free from “fear and want” is the ideal of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these two freedoms can be represented by civil liberties and socio-economic rights. They are embedded in the national constitutions of many nations as well as in international human rights law. On the other hand, dignity corresponds to a moral attitude when aiming at the realization of these freedoms: to express respect for humanity, recognizing that every human being has intrinsic worth (Rosen ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Human Security in East Asia: Assembling a Puzzle
• 2. Human Security Problems in Cambodia: Far from Over
• 3. Human Security in Practice: The Chinese Experience
• 4. Perceptions on Human Security: An Indonesian View
• 5. An Analysis of Japanese Stakeholder Perceptions
• 6. Perceptions and Practice of Human Security in Malaysia
• 7. Human Security and Development in Myanmar: Issues and Implications
• 8. Human Security in Practice: The Philippine Experience from the Perspective of Different Stakeholders
• 9. Human Security in Singapore: Where Entitlement Feeds Insecurity
• 10. Human Security in Practice: The Case of South Korea
• 11. Human Security in Practice in Thailand
• 12. The Concept of Human Security in Vietnam
• 13. What Is at Stake in Localizing Human Security Norms in the ASEAN+3?: A Comparative Analysis of 11 Qualitative Regional Review Surveys
• 14. The Way Forward: The Power of Diversity
• Back Matter