Human Security and Human Rights Harmonious to Inharmonious Relations

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 17 Mar 2014

Dr. Bishnu Pathak – TRANSCEND Media Service

Abstract

Human security and human rights are universal phenomena, poor to rich and individual to all people in the universe. Human security and human rights are harmonious to inharmonious natures. Human security is state to people-centered notion, whereas human rights are human-centered more. Security and rights advocate individual freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom to live in dignity, freedom to take action on one’s own behalf, freedom to inherit peace, and freedom to protect nature (environment). Human security is a derogation of certain human rights belonging to civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Human security underscores as inherent, inalienable, interdependent, multidimensional, and non-derogatory rights and freedoms whereas human rights are the core of them. Human security is exclusion of slavery, apartheid, injustice, inequality, indignity, insecurity, and inhibition similar to human rights. Human security puts security agenda at the top that strengthens humanitarian laws and their actions, respect human rights, disarm armed group, prevent or transform conflict, and defense citizen. Whereas human rights leave a significant impact for protection, promotion, and fulfillment of humanitarian action and such action realizes rights translating into practices, building up institutional capacity for its implementation. Human rights are guided by international treaties, legal instruments, and humanitarian laws whereas human security does not have any such definite parameters. Human security is a neologism, but integrated concept, however human rights have been a long history. Security protects human’s basic needs and capabilities, whereas rights act to respect or preserve them. Security assists to reduce differences of rights implementation while State suppresses some rights in the name to maintain law and order. Human security tries to ensure safety to all including asylum seekers, whereas rights demand to implement international and national legal measures. There is a contesting (many cases) and reciprocate (some cases) relationship between human security and rights to advocate its spirit: survival, liberty, life, and dignity of person. Human security has three generations: Civil-Political Rights, Socio-Economic Rights, and Collective Rights similar to human rights. Human security follows four additional generations: Right to Peace, Right to Dignity, Right to Sovereignty, and Right to Shared Responsibility.

Introduction

The Cold-War I ended the bi-polar politico-ideological warfare, but emerges the world into multi-dimensional identity-based (identitism) conflicts within the country in particular. The emergence of multiple identities ingenuity advocates individual and commune to societal safety without fear and want to all, namely, dignified citizen, asylum-seeker, stateless-people, and refugee is now popularly known as human security. Human security is universal, visible, inalienable, and non-derogatory in the universe. Human security is a vital core of life, liberty, and dignity to human rights.  Thus, human security is a ship of human rights.

The escalation of multi-cultural and socio-political “identity” differences proliferate global armed conflict that leads to a new type 4Ps of power, politics, property, and privilege competitions (liberal capitalism vs. identitism) in Cold-War II. The Cold War II is being surfaced after the collapse of iron curtain communism from Eastern European countries. Capitalism vs. identitism clash continuously widens the space because of 6Cs of caste, clan, class, color, culture, and chance contests. The democratic governments often follow capitalism in which identity issue tussle with capitalism. Despite of less numbers of human casualties, the numbers of identitism conflicts are on the rise in Cold War II which endangers lives and freedom of personal rights.

The deteriorating indicators of human security and human rights are: numbers of homicide, militarization, autocracy, and political instability. The present world Cold-War II propagates violence within nations in compared to between them previously. Thus, nature of global human security is shifting. Peace is not just the absence of armed violence or war, but presence of individual security and rights. The personal human security tends to freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom to live in dignity, freedom to take action on one’s own behalf, and freedom to inherit pro-nature environment for ourselves and forthcoming generations. Such measures are interrelated and interconnected for human security and national security (Annan:2000). And these dimensions are parts of human rights too.

The study particularly focuses on what is human security? What is human right? What security and rights for which values and threats? What security and rights for whom? What relations do security and rights have? How do harmony and inharmony work?

The paper provides an overview of the human security and human rights practices existing in the world and their relationships concerning with a concept of being survival, daily life, liberty, and dignity of human beings. It researches when and for what purposes the United Nations initiate human security and human rights. It examines the scale and consequences of the various roles of harmonious and inharmonious relations to them in a transitional society. Secondary literatures mostly draw on to learn from yesterday, analyze to live for today, and encourage to hope for tomorrow.

Human Security

The Global Peace Index 2013 (GPI 2013) reveals that there has been a less peaceful world falling 5 percent GPI score over the past six years (2008-2013). The human security initiatives in recent years went down owing to People’s Uprising in Arab, deteriorating human lives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, civil war in Syria, escalation of drugs war in Central America, and economic downturn in European countries (GPI: 2013:1-2). The human security deteriorates in 110 countries than increase in peace 48 since 2008 (GPI: 2013:4). The lack of human security do not just rise conflict, it leaves impact to everyone. The human insecurity takes heavy cost on Global Economy. The violent cost 9.46 trillion US dollars in 2012 alone equivalent to 11 percent of Global Gross Development Product (GDP) and 75 times more than efficient development assistance (Guardian: June 11, 2013). Despite of declining the peace Index, the ten highest ranking countries out of 162 surveyed are relatively small and stable democracy, human rights, and human security. Iceland has again topped as a peaceful nation followed by Denmark at 2nd, Austria at 4th, Switzerland at 5th, Finland at 7th, Sweden 9th, and Belgium at 10th ranks from Nordic and Alpine regions. New Zealand scores 3rd and Japan 6th from Asia-pacific region and Canada at 8th ranks (GPI: 2013: 16).

South Asia refers as the least peaceful nations in overall. Himalayan countries Bhutan remains at 20th and Nepal at 82nd ranks whereas Bangladesh at 105th, Sri Lanka at 110th, India at 141st, Pakistan 157th, and Afghanistan 162nd (GPI: 2013:14). War-torn countries are least at place of human security and human rights comprising Somalia at 161st, Syria at 160th, Iraq at 159th, and Sudan 158th ranks (GPI: 2013: 4-6). North Koran is one of the world’s largest standing armies where military expenditure is estimated at 20 percent of its GDP (GPI: 2013: 24).

Human Security is not a new concept in social, historical, and political sciences. It is a universal phenomenon. Three schools of notions namely ancient understanding, traditional concept, and modern thoughts are to be studied briefly for the studies on human security. The nation or states originated and sustained based on the notion of human security. Human security addresses a set of rights, liberty, and dignity which could not be ignored.

The ancient understanding of human security had been origin first time from Eastern World that has been available at archeological studies of Egyptian Pyramids, Iraqian Gilgamesh, Indian Harappa, and Chinese River Valley Civilization.

Pyramid, one of the seven wonders of the world in ancient Egypt, is a monumental structure that especially built (2649-1640 BC) of stone as a royal tomb in ancient Egypt (The New Oxford Dictionary of English:2001:1510). In pyramid, dead bodies had been carefully preserved with their belongings believing that the soul would return to the body afterlife. While many tombs had been looted, the offspring had made stronger and larger structures to protect and make them safer (Discovery Channel: curiosity.discovery.com).

The Gilgamesh, two-thirds god and one third man, had carved on a stone all of his toils and had built the wall of Uruk-Heaven, the wall of the sacred Enna Temple which had called the holy sanctuary at the reign of 2500 BC. Gilgamesh, the greatest surviving work of early Mesopotamia, had been a superhuman strength who built the city walls of Uruk to defend his people from external and pervasive threats (Carnahan: 1998:1).

The Harappa (3300-1300 BC) is an archeological site in Punjab of India. The Harappan civilization is known as Indus Valley Civilization in which each Harappan city had been surrounded by thick, strong, and tall walls and gateways. The walls had served to enclose separate from community differences and statues of another city to safe animals in night for not being looted and to protect the people in general from raiders, invaders or military conflicts, and flood. Houses had also been built two stories high with windows overlooking the courtyard on the purpose of security. The principle weapon had been the bow and arrow. The arrows had been tipped with points of metal or poisoned horn (www.harappa.com).

The ancient Chinese Yellow (Hueng He) River Valley is one of the oldest and largest civilization around 6000 BC had been engaged in defend or military activity since the dawn of warfare. The civilization not only given a birth of Empires era, but produced many ethnic and cultural groups in China. They often engaged into warfare. The Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties (kingdoms) had been divided into different territories to rule by aristocratic military leaders[1]. Military leaders frequently involved into wars of unification, expansion, and defense of their territories. Thus, China had been a rich in terms of military warfare in the world where Sun Tzu wrote a book on The Art of War in 6th century BC (http://www.ancientmilitary.com). The Great Wall of China had started to build as early as the 7th century BC for the protection to Chinese Empire from various nomadic groups or military. The Defense Characteristic Great Wall has been the longest, bigger, stronger, and unified famous fortification even in modern day world (Wall of China Project: 2013).

The traditional security focuses on security of nation states instead of personal security. It means the traditional security has been nation-state centric upholding the principle of sovereignty. The notion belongs to security between the nations rather than security within nation. Traditional security is also a concept of national to international security in the global arena. National security is a conventional realist approach of intra-and-interstate security[2].

The national security tends to secure the territory of nation from all kinds of political, socio-cultural, economic, environmental, nation-states and non-nation-states, and natural disaster threats. The concept of national security is to freedom from military threat and political coercion. National security is a philosophy that uses to maintain for a stable nation with the concept of sovereign state and rule by sovereign (MacFarlane et al: 1994).

The UN establishment has given dichotomous importance: people and territorial security. In San Francisco Conference in June 1945, the US Secretary Edward Reilly Stettinus Jr. reported: “The battle of peace has to be fought on two fronts. The first is the security front where victory spells freedom from fear. The second is the economic and social fronts where victory means freedom from want. Only victory on both fronts can assure the world of an enduring peace.” He further stated that the Security Council should make the world secure not only from war, but security in their homes and their jobs (Lippmann: 1943).

The world’s eminent philosophers have defined their theoretical concepts of territorial security, communities’ security by their own ways. Plato in his Ideal State stated security means not only freedom and economic happiness, but societal or individual justice. Aristotle’s Political Theory stressed upon to protect natural and comparative politics and democracy. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan argued on the structure, social contract, and legitimate government for the good of the commonwealth whereas Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince focused on political treaties, effective truth, ethics, and conflict. Immanuel Kant stressed on security of state, security of neighbor, and security of the freedom of the state. Klaus Knorr termed of national security. Karl Marx’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat highlighted protection of individual laborers, class, and their communities. Harold Lasswell defined the distinctive meaning of national security that advocates freedom from foreign dictation. Arnold Wolfers put forward the objective of national security that was absence of threats to acquire values and subjectively.

The modern phenomenon of human security developed along with the progress of human civilization, humans’ needs, and interests in the changed context. Several authors have contributed for the origin of human security. Emma Rothschild stated extended (human) security prevent humans from civil conflicts (1995: 98). Gary King and Christopher Murray (2001-2002) and Caroline Thomas (2000) stressed upon individual basic needs, political freedom, human dignity, and democracy. Fen Osler Hampson emphasized to human security for the protection of personal interests, safety, and liberty. Studying conflict-prone African countries, Leaning and Arie (December 2000) focused human security as a new developmental dimension for the protection of individual survivals. Amartya Sen (July 28th2000) has given human security as alternative concept of poverty and development for individual security of survival. Kanti Bajpai (August 2000) has ensured human security as audit to reduce threats for individual freedom and safety. Sadako Ogata (2003) mentioned that human security is to protect and empower people to live with safety and dignity.

Japan, Canada, and Norway initiate the importance of individual human security introducing it on their legal instruments, international relations, and foreign policies. The Government of Japan considers human security as an individual freedom from want, fear, and dignity, but Japan has given an equal emphasis to both freedom from want and freedom from fear as a two wheels of the same cart. Canadian Government focuses for personal freedom from pervasive threats to people’s rights and their safety. Norway stresses upon human security as the freedom from fear identifying a core agenda of preventive action, control of small arms and light weapons, and peace operations.

The traditional concept of the human security leads to responsible integrity of the state for the purpose to prevent the state from interstate war, armed violence, civil disorder, nuclear proliferation, etc. whereas human security tends to individual in which state is responsible for the personal integrity from the critical pervasive threats, namely poverty, hunger, disease, violence, landmines, national disaster, and human rights violation and abuse. Human security is an extension of national security.

The pioneering step of human security developed in the global while the UNDP produced 1994 Human Development Report. The dichotomous form of human security is safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression and protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life (UNDP:1994:23). Human security needs in homes, jobs or communities (Jolly et al: May 2006:1). Thus, human security turns to State-centered conceptions of national security to people-centered considerations of security (Freitas: 2002:37). The Commission on Human Security 2001 defines “The objective of human security is to protect the vital core of all human lives from critical and pervasive threats in a way that is consistent with long-term human fulfilment ” (Keizo:2002:42).

The people-centered human security focuses for survival, likelihood, and dignity of individuals. Human security is a vital core of life, personal freedom, and dignity (UN Trust Fund for Human Security: December 2011:4). National security has for long been interpreted narrowly- territorial security from external aggression, protection of national interests in foreign policy, and global security from the threat of nuclear holocaust (UNDP:1994:22).

Human security in broad term tends to economic security, food security, health security, personal security, political security, community security, and environmental security (UNDP: 22-28). Economic security is freedom from want (hunger/poverty); food security advocates the right to access to food; health security focuses the right to access to health care and protection from diseases; environmental security means right to protect from dangers as environmental pollution and depletion; political security enjoys civil and political rights; personal security ensures physical safety from extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, domestic violence, war, criminal attacks, involuntary disappearance and abduction, drug use, etc.; and community security guarantees survival or protection of traditional cultures, identity of ethnic groups, and the physical security. Environmental security relies on a healthy physical environment curiously assuming that whatever damage they inflict on the earth, it will eventually recover (UNDP:22-28).

The Commission on Human Security[3] states “Human security and state security are mutually reinforcing and dependent on each other. Without human security, State security cannot be attained and vice versa” (2003: 6). It responses the complexity and the interrelatedness of both old and new security threats such as from chronic and persistent poverty to ethnic violence, human trafficking, climate change, health pandemics, international terrorism, and sudden economic downturns. Human security depends upon development, human rights, and national security (UNTFHS:September 10, 2009:6). Human security protects fundamental freedoms which are essential of life creating civil, political, social, economic, environmental, military, and cultural systems for people’s survival, livelihood, and dignity.

Human security is broader notion, encompassing non-military and non-state threats (Krause and Williams: 1997; Baldwin: 1997). However, the US defines the human security as a term of war “a nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by war” (Lippmann:1943). Human security directs towards the reducing poverty, achieving economic growth, and preventing conflict. The coalition for the promotion of human security is to find a way to reconcile the competing national interests with safety and security (Mahmud et al: December 2008:71-72).

The two central words “human security” contain in the very notion itself, for example,  ‘security’ as a mean of protection from various threats, crises, and provisions of a safe environment and ‘human’ as a shift of focus from a State-central approach towards placing the individual at the center (Oberleitner: June 2002:26).

Thus, the emergence of human security is significant for personal security discourse. It is now drawing world’s attention on the course to respect essential connotation. The security threats shall only be eradicated while all parties such as government, international organizations, NGOs, civil society, professional organizations, and likeminded institutions and individual works together for the fulfillment of basic needs, freedom, dignity, and right to development.

Human Rights

Asia which belongs to world’s 60 percent population with very complex cultural, socio-political, and economic diversities has heterogeneity even on theory and practice of human rights. Asian notion of human rights to some extent is defensive and focus more to defend on people’s democracy or authoritarian regimes in compared to control and offensive politics of western perspectives. Asian notion focuses for economic development and political rights as two wheels of the same cart. It advocates duties of the state and rights of individual on equal footing. It further states that civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, the rights of the individual, and the rights of the community, the society and the nation are interrelated and indivisible (Kawamura: 1977). The concept basically concentrates on the implementation of human rights that balances between individual human rights and obligation of individual toward the state or community. China said, “Nobody shall place his own rights and interests above those of the state and society, nor should he be allowed to impair those of others and the general public” (Kawamura: 1977). Amartya Sen stated that the moral appeal of human rights has been used for varying purposes, from resisting torture and arbitrary incarceration to demanding the end of hunger and unequal treatment of women (CHS: 2003: 9).

The culture, region, class, and values differences between east and west have seen in several official delegations at World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993. The delegations from Singapore, China, Indonesia, and so forth were tried to influence other representatives through their own definition based on culture, values, and diversities. Chinese delegation said, “’When poverty and lack of adequate food and clothing are commonplace and people’s basic needs are not guaranteed, priority should be given to economic development. Individuals must put the states’ rights before their own” (Sen: July 14-21, 1997) rather than civil and political rights. Foreign minister of Singapore warned “Universal recognition of the ideal of human rights can be harmful if universalism is used to deny or mask the reality of diversity”.  The Indonesian representative said, “Now generally accepted that all categories of human rights – civil, political, economic, social, and cultural, the rights of the individual and the rights of the community, the society and the nation – are interrelated and indivisible” (Sen: July 14-21, 1997 and Kawamura: 1977).

The Asian cultural values and socio-political identities are less favor to freedom, but more apprehensive to order and discipline. It, in general, focuses more on basic needs as basic rights of community or people rather than individual political and civil liberties in compared to West. In authoritarian countries, the politics of government controls faster rates of economy and economic growth, but few rich elites control all systems of government and political parties in liberal or multi-party democracies. The authoritarian regimes such as China, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia achieved rapid economic growth rather than liberal democratic country Japan, India, Costa Rica, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, etc.

It is to be noted that the Asian perspective should be examined in socio-political context, multi-party democracy to people’s democracy and to authoritarian rule. However, people’s democracy is gradually moving towards liberalism and authoritarian regime is declining too. In some context, there is democracy without people’s representatives. Nepal lies in such a democratic republic country in the world of that it functions without people’s representatives in all tiers. Moreover, the Government is led by monocrats[4] chosen by mainstream leaders of Nepal.

Asian value systems have become particularly quite central in Confucius and Hindu-Buddhist faiths. The core of Confucius faith leads to humanism and relationships. Confucian is an ethic of socio-political teachings that leads to honesty and humanity. Such teachings promote the virtues. The five virtues such as humaneness, righteousness or justice, property or etiquette, knowledge, and integrity are no less than the broader sense of present western model of human rights. The relationship is a social harmony and social harmony is a bond between family and society. There are five bonds: ruler to ruled, father to son, elder brother to younger brother, friend to friend, and husband to wife. In Asian culture, husband needs to benevolence toward his wife and wife needs to respect the husband in return (Yao: 2000 & Nylan: 2001).

Hinduism recognizes as the oldest living religion that had been started from the Vedic era (1700 to 500 BC). The principal philosophy of Hinduism is Basundaeva kutumbakam (The world is one family) (Pathak: November 2, 2008:1). Hinduism has significantly ethnic and cultural diversity which mostly follows in Nepal and India, Indian subcontinent. It completely grants freedom of belief and worship. Hindu faith includes dharma (duties/ethics), samsara (the continuing of birth, death, and rebirth), karma (action and subsequent action), moksha (liberation of samsara), and yogas (paths/practices). In general, the faith of Hinduism enriches along with the karma and dharma based on daily morality (Sivananda: 1997 & Vivekananda:undated).

In Hindu conception, human rights mean good governance originated from dharma and dharmasastras which were originally used as “science of law” and “science of social justice” and are still revered so in Hindu-Buddhist countries. Dharma and dharmasastras refer to the privileges, duties, and obligations of human beings. The Constitution of India and Nepal has been developed and enriched by deriving from the moral standards established by dharma and dharmasastras in the areas of politics, religion, and social justice (Pathak:2005:24).

Buddhism leads to Theravada (the school of elders) and Mahayana (the great vehicle) with human sukkha and dukkha. The Buddhism practices through three jewels: Buddha (fully awakened one), dharma (the teachings), and sangha (the community). The eightfold paths of Buddha are: right to view, right to intention/thought, right to speech, right to action, right to livelihood, right to effort, right to mindfulness, and right concentration (Pathak: 2005:50-55).

The western conception of human rights emphasizes upon the basic civil and political rights of individuals that determine the power of government over the governed (Shaw:1977:198). Human rights are entitled to every man, woman, and child because they are human (Lawson:1996:xix).  The ideology of human rights being moral rights is that every man, woman, and child possesses inherent and inalienable rights (Pathak:2005:19). These rights are: (i) universal, (ii) individual, (iii) paramount, (iv) practicable, and (v) enforceable (see Macfarlane:1985). Maurice Cranston states that human rights are the rights of all people at all times and in all situations (1973:21) even in times of conflict and national emergency. It is universally true to respect life, to respect for one’s dignity, to be dealt with honestly, to have one’s interest, to be freed from coercion and intrusion, and to have one’s distress cared for (Pathak:2005:20). Therefore, human rights are the rights of individuals to meet their needs and purposes (Macfarlane:1985:6).

In many cases, human rights may or may not be legalized, but there has been a strong provision of social ethics, state duties, and responsibilities. The idea of human rights has often motivated through the national legislative and international instruments such as 1215 Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Rights (Great Charter of the Liberties of England), 1689 English Bill of Rights, 1791 American Bills of Rights, 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the 20th century (Pathak:2005:35-38). The understanding of human rights may further be divided into human rights as moral rights, human rights as legal rights, and human rights as cultural relativism (Pathak:2005:19-21).

The human rights approach defends the value of a list of human rights that includes freedom from torture and genocide, and the right for a woman to take paid leave after childbirth.  The human security approach necessarily addresses concrete security threats and human rights threats individually (Alkire: 2003: 40).

The waging of armed conflict and war against terrorism violate national and international human rights bills and international humanitarian law (IHL). Amnesty International and many other human rights organizations work for the rights of victims against terrorism and armed groups, supporting them in their struggle for truth, justice, and reparation (April 2011:1). In conflicting and fragile states, humanitarian action is needed. The humanitarian falls on the category of human rights, but action or intervention counts as a part of human security. Human rights have definite principles of each individual aspect. Principles of human rights at each element given below are taken from a book on Politics of People’s War and Human Rights in Nepal.

• Philosophy: Philosophical rights are based on the concepts of human dignity, self-reliant, paramount, and the egalitarian rights.
• Nature: Natural rights are universal, inherent, non-derogatory, inalienable, and self-evident.
• Political: Political rights are the respect for the integrity of life, the right to liberty of movement, freedom, and participation in political life.
• Civil: Civil rights are enforceable rights to citizens, physical integrity and safety, protection from discrimination and insecurity, right to adult franchise, and equal participation in economic, social, and cultural life.
• Legal: Legal rights are a rule of law, equality before and under the law, and protection from all kinds of injustices.
• Social: Social rights are to ensure an adequate standard of living, the right of family, fraternity, solidarity, non-discrimination, and self-determination.
• Economic: Economic rights are to work and distribute resources for the adequacy of basic needs such as food, housing, clothing, and healthcare.
• Culture: Cultural rights are participation in cultural life, customary practices, the right to minorities, and the right to education.
• Religion: Religious rights are for a secular nation, freedom to change his/her belief, and intolerance based on faith or religion (Pathak:2005:27).
• Class: Class rights are to reduce disparities between rich and poor; end of unequal wage, prejudice, and exploitation; and initiate equitable resource distribution, social friendship, social harmony, cultural promotion, political participation, and inclusive nation state.
• Worker: Worker rights are a right to unionize, firmly implementation of national laws and international employment standards, and equitable distribution of benefits of productions between employees and employers.
• Owner: Owner rights are rights not to unionize at workplace; liable for loss and profit; ensure safe working place and environment; and right to hire, suspend, promote,  dismiss, and distribute bonus to workers respecting customary practices, national laws, and international instruments.

These principles are against the gross violations of human rights as result of conflict, displacement, and human suffering on a massive scale. In this regard, human security underscores the universality and primacy of a set of rights and freedoms that are fundamental for human life (UN Trust Fund for Human Security. September 10, 2009: 9).

Human rights refer respect, protection, promotion, and fulfillment of basic needs and freedom to which all human beings are entitled as beneficiaries whereas state is responsible to work as duty holders. Thus, human rights are a child of law these continuously enrich through the needs, purposes, and demands in the changed context of human civilization.

In two “human rights” words, ‘human’ characterizes to man and mankind by nature and ‘rights’ claim entitlement to justice attaining through non-interference from others. Human rights commonly understand as inalienable fundamental rights and freedoms which as conceived as universal[5] and egalitarian[6] (Pathak:2005).

Eastern values of Confucius, Hinduism, and Buddhism have already stated the broader term of human rights long back compared to Western human rights perspectives. These faiths were obedient to the state and loyalty with the family and society/community for social harmony. Thus, the modern conceptions of human rights have been drawn from Asian value systems in particular and western notion of human rights in general. The ancient faiths focuses more on egalitarian society unlike present day power, property, and privilege of politics even the ratification, accession to, and intervention of fundamentals of human rights and humanitarian law.

Harmonious and Inharmonious Relations

Harmony is part of life that exits in self, society, nature, and divine (Giri: January 3, 2012:1). Harmony, human security, and human rights go hand in hand. Human security and rights are the process for perfection whereas harmony is a perfect relationship. Both are experienced alone by a person whereas harmony is a systematic character between two or more persons or parties; harmony is always a plural condition. Human security enjoys alone; harmony is living together peacefully (Pathak: December 3, 2012: 1-4). Security implies calmness; harmony requires unity (Pathak: February 2013). Article 1.4 of the UN Charter keeps the harmony of the nation at the center.

Harmony is a joining of heart and spirit (Sharma: January 3, 2012:1). Leo Semashko focuses to individual in the society believing that individual harmony is only part of the social harmony. Without acknowledging the social harmony, individual harmony cannot be understood (2012:22). The value of security and harmony is based on the human mindset, human rights, mutual respect, and trust, cooperation, co-existence, and open mindedness (Gandhi Vidhya Mandir: February 11-13, 2012). Harmony is based on the social justice, fundamental rights, and freedom, co-existence, and fraternity (see Pyramid: peace-conflict lifecycle). It is envision of individual and societal mindset for love without hierarchy which separates development of peace and conflict. It is a discourse of what we observe; what we read; what we analyze/say; and what we do for world peace, justice, happiness, and humanity. Therefore, harmony is against all types of negative conflict, thoughtless debate, insensitive deliberation, and insecurely implementation of human rights. The term inharmonious is antonyms, opposite, and wretch of harmonious word.

Harmonious Relations between Human Security and Human Rights

Both human security and human rights try to address violence-free and hunger-free individual to society in which human rights entail certain elements of human security that are equally vital, equally fundamental, equally significant, and equally applicable.

In general, human security debts with tradition[7] of human rights and human rights have contesting relations with human security. Displacement, disappearance, and human suffering such as arbitrary arrest, detention, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, and so forth are the results of gross violations of human rights. For this, human security emphasizes the universality and primacy of a set of rights and freedoms as fundamentals for human lives and their fulfillment. Human security has no distinction than civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights (UNTFHS:2003:9). Both try to wipeout grave violations, abuses, and threaten in a multidimensional and comprehensive manner. Human security introduces a practical agenda for identifying the specific rights that are at risk in a particular situation of transitional security (Pathak: February 5, 2013). It considers the institutional arrangements for governance that are needed to apply and uphold collective and individual rights. “Human security complements state security, enhances human rights, and strengthens human development” (CHS:2003: 2). Human security encompasses human rights, good governance, access to education and health care rights and each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfill his or her own individual potential (CHS:2003:4).

There has been a harmonious relationship between the concepts of human rights and human security. The concept of human security invokes in modern political debates as human rights. Amartya Sen said, “Since human security as an important descriptive concept demands ethical force and political recognition, it is useful that this can be appropriately obtained through seeing freedoms related to human security as an important class of human rights (CHS: 2003: 9). Human security is a broader concept, comprising of fundamental rights as well as basic needs, resources, and capabilities. Human rights is a core of human security (Alkire:2002:5) where human security has been a normative structure.

Every person anywhere in the universe, irrespective of birth, sex, citizenship, geography, culture, profession, and socio-political origin, has some fundamental rights in which others should respect. Human security has a moral appeal for varying purposes of rights including to end hunger to all. One of the most important aspects of human security is that people should be able to live in a society that honors their fundamental human rights (UNDP:1994:32).

Human security is a core effort to construct a global society where the safety of the individual is at the center of international policies and priorities as a motivating force for international action. International human rights standards, humanitarian law, and the rule of laws are advanced interwoven as a coherent for the protection of individual. State persons or authorities who violate these standards are fully held accountable and state is compelled to enhance and enforce these standards. Human security is a state of feeling happy, safe, and free from worry which protects rights against something wrong that might happen anytime, anyplace to anyone.

Human rights are specific contents, recognized, and prescribed in international human rights instruments, also called International Bill of Rights. They are: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[8]; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); etc., while the topicality of human security traced back in 1994 Human Development Report of UNDP (Hai:2008:5). The 1994 Report referred to two major components such as freedom from want and fear of human security. However, both have already stated by the US president in four freedoms of speech in January 1941. The freedoms of fear and want have  been stated in Preamble of the UDHR including right to social security in Article 22 and Article 25.1 on right to employment security of the UDHR. Besides, a few articles of such rights instruments directly advocates of human security.

Security is a secure condition or feeling (UNDP:1994:23) which consists of objective (the surrounding situation) and the subjective (personal feeling) factors. The security concerns with person (personal security), society (social security), and world (international security) in human rights instruments. There has been a competitive relations between the right holder (person) and duty bearer (state security) while former asks to ensure rights of all and later advocates for their duty to protect them.

Personal security is to protect from arrest and detention by State security forces and other non-state actors.  Article 3 of the UDHR and Article 9 of the ICCPR ensure liberty and security of person. Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the ICCPR safeguard to each person from arbitrary arrest and detention. He or she shall be brought before a judge at the earliest. Article 10 of the ICCPR guarantees individual dignity and humanity. The Article 11 prohibits the use of imprisonment as a punishment for breach of contract. Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom provides right to liberty and security of person. Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 1 and 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights specify right to life, liberty, and personal security. Thus, individual or personal security has been a common concern of all human rights treaties and other legal instruments.

Social security has ensured at the article 22 and 25 in the UDHR. Article 9 of the ICESCR, Article 16 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and Article 9 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights recognize the right of everyone to social security. International security refers the form of a collective right which has stated in Article 23 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which says “All peoples shall have the right to national and international peace and security”.

Human security has long been connection with rights and such rights correspond with the duties of other individual, people, and institution. Duties shall take the form of perfect obligations which constitute specific demands on particular persons or of imperfect obligations. Amartya Sen says, “To give effectiveness to the perspective of human security, it is important to consider who in particular has what obligations (such as the duties of the state to provide certain basic support) and also why people in general, who are in a position to help reduce insecurities in human lives, have a common-though incompletely specified-duty to think about what they can do” (CHS:2003:9). Human security within a general framework of human rights shall bring many rewards to the perspective of human security (CHS:2003:9). Thus, human security and human rights shall go working relations with characteristic clarity through mutual respect and benefit.

Human rights shall be trade off for more security concerning with individual person. Human security trumps over human rights and it has been a catchword debate on the changing meaning of security in the world. Japan, Canada, and Norway have developed an active agenda of freedom from fear in their foreign policy. Security provision has been incorporated in Japan’s foreign policy and the World Bank, albeit in very different ways, to pursue freedom from fear and want. Japan does not prioritize freedom from fear over freedom from want, but holds them as dual objectives of human security (UNDP:1994:3). The UN on human security report on We the People… with freedom from want and fear, and freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy natural environment, are interrelated to human and national security (Annan: March 2000).

Governments of Austria, Canada, and Norway have established Human Security Network (HSN) in March 1999 of states and NGO, the coalition of the like-minded individuals and institutions (Paris 2001:87). On the course of institutional prioritize of human security at international level, the UNTFHS established in March 1999 mainly with contributions from Japan and the informal group of 13 countries (Estrada-Tanck:2009:3). The HSN succeeded to achieve an international ban on anti-personnel mines.

Owing to supplement relations between human rights and human security, the specific demands of human rights have to be filled with appropriate motivational support, human security helps to fill the specific demands through logical substantiation, conquering human insecurity. Since human security demands an important descriptive concept for moral force and political recognition, it shall appropriately be achieved by freedoms associating with human security that is an important class of human rights.

The 1993 Vienna Declaration of Human Rights stresses upon the universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness, and interdependence which are similar to human security.  The 2001 Durban World Conference against Racism, Fear, and Hatred of Migrants was held to protect and attain human security. The respect human rights itself protects the human security.

In millennium year, UNSG suggested to strengthen the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the human rights machineries: the treaty bodies and committees (CHS:2003:28). Regional human rights mechanisms such as Inter-American Commission and Court for Human Rights tried to address state obligations during the civil conflicts in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe tries to promote protection of human rights through its Human Dimension Program linking with multilateral security issues for domestication of human rights and democratization. Similarly, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the African Court ensure the normative institutional framework on the course to protect people. Even African Union offers opportunities for protecting human rights addressing human insecurity issues. No Human Rights Commission has been formed in governments’ level in Asia-pacific region, but civil society is actively engaging on human rights for the security of human beings. However, in most of the Asian countries, human rights organizations are functioning under the umbrella of political parties to fulfill their parties’ interest rather for the need and benefit to people in general.

National, regional, and international security organizations much focus for human security through human rights training to state security forces, disseminating information to media, (re)integrating former combatants either into army or into society, conducting election monitoring, and supporting displaced persons or communities. For examples, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the residing great majority communities accepted to return back to the minorities. Moreover, they supported to restore returnees’ properties respecting their human rights. Besides, security forces gave priority in rehabilitating drinking-water and electricity services and the reconstruction of buildings under the “Open Cities” program (CHS:2003:27).

Human security should be mainstreamed as a priority agenda in international, regional, and national levels. Such institutions should respect the humanitarian principle and action on the strategies linking with political, military, and humanitarian levels to protect people from conflict; uphold human rights and humanitarian law in protecting, and empowering people in conflict; require to disarm people and fight crime; mitigate the violent conflict in collapsed states and contested territories fully upholding all rights; and  respect the right of each person’s nationality and ensure effective citizenship on the course to attain human security (CHS:2003:32).

The Workshop on Relationship between Human Rights and Human Security reaffirms the conviction of human rights to attribute human dignity for the implementation of the notion of human security (Jose:December 2, 2001). Similarly, human security applies on enforcing humanitarian law in all conflicting parties, state-and-non state actors including warlords and rebel groups.

Human security includes protection of citizens from environmental pollution, transnational terrorism, massive movements and infectious diseases as HIV/AIDS, and long-term conditions of oppression and deprivation. Regional and international organizations, NGOs and civil society are involved in managing security issues fighting against HIV/AIDS, the ban against landmines and the massive mobilizations in support of human rights (CHS:2003:6).

Human Security in UNDP of Nepal*

The Crisis Prevention and Recovery under UNDP Nepal announced a vacancy for the position of Team Leader of Collaborative Leadership and Dialogue Pillar (SB-5) on May 25, 2013. The duties and responsibilities of the position were to mainstream conflict sensitivity for the promotion of collaborative leadership practices at both national and local levels. The position required PhD with 10 years experiences in peacebuilding.  While I have two decades of experiences on conflict transformation and peacebuilding initiatives, I applied for the position.

The UNDP called for the written text morning and interview at afternoon on June 26. Only two applicants including its author (me) were attended for interviews. While I found a suspicious role of my competitor at both written text and interview, I was very much confused that whole night. Finally I sent an appeal to my Interviewers Lach Fergusson, Peacebuilding Advisor and Peter Barwick, Project Manager at 3.00 o’clock next morning with my following observations:

• We all examinees submitted our signed forms and photocopies of mark sheets except my competitor.
• We all followed the instructions of examiners including to switch off mobiles except my competitor.
• While he was taken a special care by the examiner, I congratulated him immediate after the written text.
• He confidently said to me stating “You have theoretical experiences, but I have practical skills and power.”
• My competitor was interviewed for 67 minutes in compared to 43 minutes to me. He was accompanied by HRD Officer to see off him till outside door, but I was not. Peter repeatedly said to finish my answers soon.
• More importantly, the interviewers held 7 minutes clandestine meeting before my interview, but one of my interviewer Bandana Risal left the room before my departure.

My overall impression was that my competitor was already selected before written text and interview held. I was attended just to complete the process. As I did not get back any response on my appeal, I again wrote an email to Dennis Curry, Head of Peacebuilding and Recovery on July 12 asking for right to information. On July 16 he replied, “I have checked with HR colleagues and this process is still ongoing. Rest assured that, along with all candidates, your application and interview have been fully considered, and we wish you best of luck in the process”. I again wrote emails requesting for result of the proposed vacancy on 38th and 42nd days, but in vain. On August 8, I finally wrote a final email stating “I have no more hope of that justice prevails in Nepal, Satile sarapeko desma yastai hunchha (It happens in the country where suttee had given a curse)”. My second interview was conducted by Peter Barwick and Rina Chhetri on August 18th after 52 days of my first interview and third interview was on December 2, 2013 (after 160 days of my first interview) by Krishna Raj Adhikari and Rina Chhetri. The team leader was required a PhD, of at least 10 years, in development work related to conflict resolution, conflict prevention, and peace-building experiences, but they finally hired Master Degree holder.

Why does the UN lose its credibility in Nepal? First, conflict often occurs in the least developed countries, but UN officials are from developed countries. Such officials are unfamiliar with the socio-political, conflicting terrain, and poor people’s voices, grievances, and suffering.  Second, except a few officials such as Robert Piper, most of inexperienced with poor certificates holders recruit into poor and conflict prone country like Nepal. The qualified and experienced citizens easily get jobs at their desired institutions and demanded facilities and place. Third, such new officials first learnt from the experts and later try to be a master of them. Fourth, such officials seek incompetent junior staffs owing to inferior complexities. However, they conduct texts and interviews of intelligent ones to polish the report of recruitment process. Fifth, they have less humanitarianism, but more job-orientation. Sixth, none of the competent intellectuals speak a word against such humiliation fearing to denial of future opportunities. Lastly, they are highly influenced and entertained by privilege of power, politics, and property. This is a representative case alone.

The Voluntary Minors and Late Recruits (VMLRs) of the Maoist Army vandalized the UN office at Dhangadi, Kailali district on the charge of unhygienic food provided to them during skill-oriented training on February 10, 2011. The VMLRs claimed that they received unhygienic food and poor accommodation because of massive corruption done inside the UN. The Global Corruption Barometer 2013 stated that Nepal’s civil servants are responsible to two-thirds percent of corruption. It is to be remarkable of that injustice commits anywhere is challenge to justice everywhere.

*Note: This case study is analyzed based on the personal experiences gained while being worked as a senior peace, security and human rights expert on International Evaluation of Support (Denmark, Finland and Switzerland as core donors and Germany, UK, and Norway as peripheral donors) to the Peace Process in Nepal, 2012-2013.

On July 9, 2013, the Transparency International (TI) has published its Global Corruption Barometer 2013[9]. The report said that Nepal’s political parties are responsible to 70 per cent for corruption followed by civil service with 66 per cent (see case study II). Similarly, the corruption level stands at 58 percent in police, 51 per cent in parliament and judiciary, 30 per cent in private sector, 20 per cent in NGOs, and 17 per cent in health service. Likewise, 16 per cent corruption is found in religious sector and the least, 14 per cent, in the media. Thus, entire democracy of Nepal tilted upon Dhan Bahadur (wealth), Don Bahadur (gangstar), and Bal Bahadur (power) without people’s representatives for 15 years. The above figures are itself an example of that how the people in the universe shall themselves assume what type of human security and human rights is there in Nepal.

The fortune of Nepal is that she lies in between the two emerging superpower China in the North and India in the South. The misfortune is that Nepal is within these two superpowers. China friendly assists to small and landlocked country Nepal. Its sole concern is to stop anti-Chinese or free Tibet activities from Nepal. However, India has a very deep socio-political and natural resources interest in Nepal. How much India has an influence in Nepal shall be realized by the recent daylong visit of India’s Foreign Minister on July 9, 2013. Nepal’s top and former Prime Ministers lined up at the hotel to meet India’s Minister. All four former PM failed to prior notice to the Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs violating the Diplomatic Code of Conduct-2011. These leaders severely humiliated nation’s sovereignty and dignity (Tiwari: July 11, 2013).  This is just a single case of how Nepal’s leaders bow down their heads in front of India’s power and politics.

Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh granted audience to Nepal’s topmost leaders namely Prachanda, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Madhav Kumar Nepal, and Susil Koirala in New Delhi similar to monarch granted audience before the proclamation of Republic Nepal on May 29, 2008. India puts topmost priority to Nepali Congress party while both Deuba and Koirala invited for six days visit from June 9-14 and August 4-9 respectively, while Prachanda for four-day (April 27-30) and Madhav Nepal for five-day (July 23-27) within five months alone this year. It happens while Nepal’s leaders have feudal attitude, lilliputian mentality, and slavery standpoint. They are incapable of sorting the existing problems of Nepal because of deepening ideological crises, culture of impunity, corruption, and non-implementation of legal measures and signed agreements and treaties.

The differing politico ideology of two emerging superpower China and India informally reach on a harmonious conclusion to establish cultural monarchy in Nepal for their own security interests. India used Prachanda-led Maoist card to dethrone kingdom and is again trying to use Baidya-led Maoist card to restore monarchy in Nepal stating as a symbol of incarnation of Hindu God, sovereignty, and unity. India afraid of increasing demands of ethnic and cultural federation in Nepal, on the one hand and exhausted to convince with 162 parties in Nepal, on the other. China has been a long tie with Nepal’s monarch.

The insecurities cause the downside risks. Such stakes threaten human survival and endanger the inherent dignity of men and women, suffer human beings uncertainty of disease, and abrupt penury because of financial downturns. Human security demands protection from endangers and the empowerment of human beings to cope with such possible hazardous overcome and it is for to respect human rights and judicial security to human beings.

After the 9/11, the security perspective for an individual turned into collective security for institutions in security threats discourse (Pathak: July 1, 2013: 11). Collective security strives to promote security for all the members, without prejudice to the beneficiary, location, resources, or relationship with Great Powers (UN:2004:19). The collective security interest is guided by the interest of USA and its Lilliputians. The idea of collective security was enforced by the UN when it was discovered the intent of terrorists is to attack on values such as respect for human rights; the rule of law; rules of war that protect civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and the peaceful resolution of conflict. It lies at the heart of the Charter of the UN (UN.2004:48).

Human security is a security of all dimensions; human, state to nature in the universe. It respects human rights, tends to promote egalitarian society, and strengthens development. It seeks to protect people against a broad range of threats to individuals and communities and, further, to empower them to act on their own behalf (CHS: 2003: 2). Human security upholds human rights, pursuing inclusive and equitable development and respecting human dignity and diversity (Ogata: 2003:5). Thus, human security and human rights often interconnected, multidimensional, universally applicable to all people everywhere, poor to rich individuals and nations.

The concept of human security is to respect the fundamental of all human lives rather than defend, shield, guarantee, maintain, uphold, secure, preserve, safeguard, ensure, and so forth of human rights. Thus, human security is a redefined comprehensive intra-and-intra-personal security. Human right is a legal instrument whereas human security is diverse and flexible which shall operate at local, nation, regional, and international levels. Human security strengthens existing legal framework and treaties of human rights.

Inharmonious Relations between Human Security and Human Rights

Owing to recent humanitarian crises, emergencies and their concerns, war on terror, individual needs, unequal distributions of resources, and competition to grasp the opportunities, harmonious and inharmonious relations shall clearly be seen between human security and human rights. Large numbers of countries have been working to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill the norms, values, and principles of human rights in the world. Dozens of International Conventions, Covenants, and Declarations have already been endorsed by the UN Generally Assembly and most of the member states of the UN have either signed or ratified/acceded to them. There is no public debate and discussion on human security. However, human security studies have been initiated by the World’s First Online Transcend Peace University, Germany from March 2013.

In assessment between human security and human rights, two different concepts and approaches are to be studied. The concept of human rights loses the conceptual autonomy of its proponents; on the contrary, human security has proved to be far different from that of human rights, being more political, more blurred, and paradoxically more subject to abuse compared to human rights (Buranelli:undated:6-7).

The UN charter did not sufficiently define the essence of human rights. The adoption of the UDHR in December gave a birth to recognize inherent, equal, and inalienable rights of individuals including members of the human family. The UN Charter has given top priority on peace and security, but could not move ahead to draft neither the declaration of human security nor convention because of politics of powerful and developed nations. Thus, human rights issues have been widespread and human security is limited. Sudha Menon says, “The Charter does not provide any concrete strategy for implementing the rights, it still provides a beacon light for the further development of human security (Menon: 2007: 4).

Security to Nepal’s Caregiver in Israel

More than 8,000 mostly female migrant workers are presently working in Israel as caregivers. The human insecurity (discrimination and exploitation) and human rights abuse (torture and humiliation) to Nepalese migrant workers begin from their own home country. The exploitation started while intended migrant workers should pay fees US $ 6,000-12,000 to recruitment agencies/brokers in Nepal (Oved et al: July 2011: 7). One-fifths of the fees went to their Israel broker agencies. Even after invested that much of money, a few of migrant workers failed to receive visas while their agent(s) failed to bribe US $ 100 to 500 to Nepalese staffs working in Embassy of Israel in Kathmandu clandestinely. Most of the Nepalese are to face humiliation even from their own Nepal Police, guarding at the Embassy, in the name of tightening security, being received order from senior staffs at the Embassy. While approximately 1,000 youths had already deposited their fees to Israeli brokers, the Israeli Government suddenly stopped to grant visas further caregivers from Nepal in April 2009. Moreover, the documents deposited for visas were also cancelled. Israeli brokers freed from the scene instead to pay back the fees taken from Nepalese youths. A caregiver Tara Kumar was beaten by Sara Netanyahu, wife of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in August 2011 (Tarnopolsky: September 1, 2011).

The issue of human rights to USA has become prominent to unite the states whereas same issue worked for secession in former USSR and Yugoslavia. The USA and its allies, politically and socio-economically try hard to impose the same anti-communist strategy to secede the Tibet from China. That is why China wants to make its own country secure tightening anti-Tibet protest from neighboring land Nepal.  Besides, India time and again asked Nepalese authority to ensure security stopping fake currency transferring to India from Nepal.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan had launched several activities related to human security.  The initiative started in December 1998 when Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi expressed his views on human security in the Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia’s Tomorrow (Pathak: July 1, 2013: 14). It has played a significant role to proliferate the ethics of human security which supported to establish the Commission on Human Security[10] (CHS) in 2001 financially and technically. In March 1999, the Government of Japan and the UN Secretariat launched the UNTFHS to finance UN Human Security projects and to increase the human security operational impact. Its purpose was to translate the human security approach into practical actions vertically at all field levels. It has more than 200 globally funded projects (UNOCHA:2009).

In 1998, Canada and Norway signed a bilateral agreement to establish the Human Security Network. One year later, the network extended its membership with like-minded foreign ministers of 13 countries, Austria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Greece, Ireland, Jordan, Mali, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland, Thailand, and South Africa (Pathak: July 1, 2013: 14). The Network’s efforts include the steps toward the application of human security, including Ottawa Convention on Anti-personnel Landmines and establishment of the International Criminal Court (UNTFHS: 2009:57). However, there have been worldwide human rights network.

The Politics of People’s War and Human Rights in Nepal 2005 stated of moral rights, legal rights, and cultural relativism that initiates from the embryo in mother’s womb as inherent and inalienable rights. The moral rights include universal, individual, paramount, practicable, and enforceable (see Macfarlane: 1985). Human rights are the rights of all people at all times and in all situations (Cranston: 1973:21) even in times of conflict, national emergency, and other humanitarian crises.

Human rights need to be practicable as the rights to an adequate livelihood as per the resources and opportunities of a nation. Human rights are a concept of legal rights in which all men are entitled under international, domestic or customary laws. Since 1948, three types of international human rights instruments have been promulgated, which include: legally binding with a complaint mechanism, legally binding without a complaint mechanism, and not legally binding.

First, legally binding instruments with a complaint mechanism are five listed in the ICCPR[11] and its Two Optional Protocols, ICERD[12] and its Optional Protocol, CAT[13] and Its Optional Protocol, CEDAW[14], and its Optional Protocol, and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[15] (CRPD) and its Optional Protocol.

Second, legally binding instruments without a complaint mechanism include the rights listed in the ICESCR and CRC. The CRC unites all civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of the children. The CRC has 150 state parties where First Optional Protocol restricts to use of children in military conflict and Second Optional Protocol prohibits the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child labor.

Third, not legally binding instruments are those which consist of UDHR 1948, Declaration of the Rights of the Persons belonging to the National or Ethnic, Religious and linguistic Minorities 1992, and Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief 1981.

The doctrine of human rights is also act as cultural relativism that exists through knowledge, truth, and morality in relation to culture, society, and historical context, and they are not universally the same. The cultural relativism uses in three prominent worlds: First World,  Second World, and Third World and each of it has their own international, regional, and national interests (Pathak: 2005:21).

Unlike human rights as moral, legal, and cultural relativism, there is no any works have been done for human security. Albeit widely used and supported by several scholars, experts and politicians, it is difficult to assess what ‘human security’ consists of: since everything seems to fit within this expression, the logical conclusion is that human security is nothing, being everything (Buranelli:undated:6-7).

Human rights have limited or reduced rights in compared to human security. Human security seems to comprise threats from all dimensions in the universe whereas human rights do not primarily concern with natural disasters and other threats from non-State actors. Human security provides security even to asylum seekers from feeling sense of insecurity whereas human rights suffice to open a discussion of asylum seekers to genuinely implement international human rights treaties as a freedom to live with dignity[16].

Human security perceives as national security allowing derogation of certain human rights. If human security assumes more importance alongside national security, human rights could not so easily been neglected, legally speaking, and derogated (Seidensticker: 2002: 1). Human security expands the notion of human rights towards threats that do not only emerge from States. Human security might allow for a better explanation of why acts by private parties and non-state actors should be seen as human rights violations (Oberleitner: February 11, 2003:6).

The article 13 of the UDHR states “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state” and “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”. The right to leave one’s country voluntarily or involuntarily left a practical effect to the people to enter another country on the one hand. State security forces, on the other, have carefully guarded their right to determine to whom to permit and reside in their territories. Consequently, there has been little progress in developing a normative framework to regulate the movement of people with security between states and to protect their rights (CHS:2003:45).

Since human rights regime feels uncomfortable in dealing with human security as a prime target, the international security actors and institutions feel odds to deal with human security as human rights. Each human rights and human security competes one another to enhance their influence internationally. On September 18, 1999, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Mary Robinson was even invited to address in Security Council to make the loud voice of human rights.

So long as the UN had focused all its efforts toward emphasizing on fundamental human rights and freedoms but prioritizing little on human security, deliberations on human security were almost absent for over three decades till in 1980 the Brandt Commission[17] brought to forefront the issue of freedom from want (Pathak: July 1, 2013: 8). The report highlighted the differences in understanding the term of living standards (economic development) among the people in rich Northern and developing Southern hemispheres of the world. The Brandt Commission Report envisages for a new kind of global security for social, economic, and political ends and threats from classical military perils. Moreover, the governments lacked political will to act on the issues owing to the polarization of the Cold-War I (Quilligan:2002).

Human right is a basic framework of universal obligations while human security points to a certain cross-section of such obligations. The language of human rights have seems weak as it was/is highly being politicized in both Cold War I and Cold War II whereas human security language is attractive. Human security uses in socio-cultural, economic, political, and military purposes while human rights are the legal instruments to prevent person or community from violations or abuses or to punish victims’ perpetrators following national and international rights measures.

The UNSG Boutros-Boutros Ghali implored “an integrated approach to human security” to address the root causes of conflict spanning a number of economic, social, and political issues. The UN is capable of maintaining international peace and security, securing justice, and human rights and promoting “social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” (June 17th 992:1-4). The UN had finally produced its first comprehensive Human Development Report in 1994. All nations should agree on a 3 percent a year reduction in military spending and increase for human security by establishing a human security fund (Human Development Report: 1994).

The Social Summit 1995 finally produced the Copenhagen Declaration and Program of Action that cooperated to develop some operational indicators of human security unlike the development of human rights in 1948. The Copenhagen Declaration incorporated ten commitments including economic, political, social, cultural, and legal environment; eradicate absolute poverty; support full employment; promote social integration and safeguard human rights; strengthen cooperation for social development through the UN, etc (The World Bank and the Copenhagen Declaration: Ten Years After: September 20, 2004:1-16). The summit also offered various concrete proposals for an early warning system identifying the countries in crisis, viz. Afghanistan, Angola, Haiti, Iraq, Mozambique, Myanmar, Sudan, and Zaire (UNDP:1994:3). That summit was the largest gathering ever of the world leaders of the era.

The report Human Security Now 2003 strives to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and rights and their fulfillment.  The Human Security Unit (HSU) was established in 2004 at the UN OCHA with the principal objective to keep human security in the mainstream of UN activities along with human rights (Human Security at the United Nations: 2012). But it could not be that much of effective while the culture of militarization widely prevails in the earth.

Over the past year, the Security Council resolutions are driven by human rights concerns. In 1977, the Security Council sent a team in South Africa to restore peace and stability against the human rights violations. The same Council had labeled South Africa as threats to regional security and stability. Thus, the UN Security Council shows double standards. However, UN Security and Human Rights Council never tried to protect individual’s human right under human security concern. It is to be remarkable of that UNSC was constituted to maintain world’s peace and security.

The Security Council uses force to restore international peace and security as stated by the article 1.1 of the UN Charter, but it mostly advocate the idea of human rights. The propaganda of human rights is to criticize the competitors (countries) who refute the western model of democracy “the economy control by the state-politics” against the “state-politics control over economy”.

Human security has not been developed the degree of independent priority yet that has been achieved by human rights. It means human security does not have the same correlative duties as human rights. Unlike thrust of human rights on correlative duties, human security does not necessarily have obligations. Human rights framework is more vocal and more fundamental. The question for the Commission is how to connect human security onto the grander vehicle of human rights. Human security shall reduce excessive use of force in the realization of rights; however, national security agency often uses to defend suppression of human rights. Human rights could not be neglected in the name of security (Seidensticker: February 5, 2002:1).

In most of the cases, human rights advocates only to first generation of human rights (freedom from fear), however, human security gives discretion of progressive realization to both freedom from want, second generation of human rights (Pathak: July 1, 2013:1). These generations are to be considered as the highest aspirations of the common people for human security first.

Human security may help to reduce differences on the implementation of human rights while state suppresses some rights in the name to protect others. The USA has yet to ratify second generation of human rights. Nepal has ratified both generations, but the government never tries to compliance them. Moreover, there have been differences on implementation of rights between powerful and weak or poor people over the period of time. “Human security may give a fresh approach to balancing civil-political and socio-economic rights” (Seidensticker: February 5, 2002:1).

Speaking at the 77th Congress on June 1941, Franklin Roosevelt had stated that American security had been seriously threatened. The US had been engaged in two wars against the European nations and Western Indies. So, he observed, “But in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence”. At that speech, he placed national security as a destiny in 3hs of hands, heads, and hearts of its millions of free men and women and their faith in freedom under the guidance of God (Pathak: July 1, 2013: 3). He emphasized, “Freedom means supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them” (June 1st 1941:1). He put forward four essential human freedoms which are: (i) freedom of speech[18], (ii) freedom of worship[19], (iii) freedom from want[20], and (v) freedom from fear[21] (June 1st 1941:2-8). Thus, he Roosevelt put forward nation’s security first and then human rights unlike today’s US policy.

The adoption of the Landmine Ban Convention, the UN Conference on Small Arms, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are focused to human security. No human rights organizations or institutions have authorities to enforce human rights obligations except ICC and international criminal tribunals. While human rights and security work together, it shall change traditional views on both concepts. The concept of human security extends the debate of human rights while the security forces mobilize for the purpose of humanitarian intervention. More analysis will be needed to explore whether and how human security explain and allow for the use of force in order to protect human rights (Ramcharan:2002).

Universal, interdependent, indivisible, inherent, inalienable, and non-derogatory are the major philosophy of human rights. Similarly, the core value of human rights are accessibility, accountability, dignity and identity, equity and equality, diversity, impartiality, independence and autonomy, participation and social inclusion, transparency, integrity, and empowerment (Pradhan: unpublished:5). The principles and core values of human security are yet to be identified, to be formed.

Human security is an impressive machine of human rights. The distinction between human security and human rights does not lie in their motivation or subject matter (Alkire: 2003: 39). Till millennium year, the language of human rights has been very much influential, but language of human security has gradually been replacing the human rights influence along with the emergence of identitism in the Cold War II. The implementation of human rights initiated in 18th century to 20th century through US Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom to bring the perpetrators into judicial custody, but human security tries hard to protect the basic needs, freedom, and national security in 21st century similar to prevention is better than care.

The principal concept of human rights is essential enough to acknowledge, safeguard, and promote the society. Human security makes a noteworthy contribution by recognizing the importance of freedom, want, and dignity from basic insecurities in both new and old concepts. The richness of human security secures human lives through moral claims recognizing certain freedoms and basic needs as human rights. Human security puts nation’s security agenda at the top to strengthen humanitarian action, respect human rights and humanitarian law, disarm armed groups, prevent conflict, and respect citizens. Human rights leave a significant impact on humanitarian action and such action helps to realize rights translating into practices and building up institutional capacity to its implementation.

The millennium decade has been very much important on the people’s movement and resides in a desired country for which International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families were come into force in December 2002.  The migrant workers were also benefitted by the 1949 ILO Migration for Employment Convention and the 1975 Convention on Migrant Workers. However, the ILO migration provisions did not attracted that much of states for human security. Similarly, only few states ratified the 1977 European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers to ensure personal security.

There are numerous committees within the UN on the course of safeguarding different human rights treaties at global level. The intergovernmental body UN seeks to apply international jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation. For human rights, two prominent bodies namely UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) have been formed. The senior body of the UN for human rights protection is the OHCHR. Other protecting bodies of human rights are: UN General Assembly, ICC, and Human Rights Committee. African Charter on Human Rights and People’s Rights, American Convention of Human Rights, and European Convention on Human rights are the three principal regional protection bodies of human rights. There are several other international non-government human rights organizations such as ICRC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. and National Human Rights Commission at national level has already been formed for the protection of human rights. However, violation and abuse of individual and collective rights have not been stopped while the nation heads toward identity-based conflict in 21st century.

It is to be noted that there is no any such UN, regional, and other national protecting bodies to human security have been formed despite the removal of threats stated in the article 1.1 of the UN Charter. Article 1.2 focuses for equal rights and right to self-determination whereas Art. 1.3 emphasizes the mandate to achieve international co-operation in resolving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, language, or religion. Although, the Article 1.1 could not be given that much of attention in compared to articles 1.2 and 1.3 of the UN Charter.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) have been set up in Argentina, Chad, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Timor-Leste. Amnesty provisions to the perpetrators of human rights abuses were adopted in Chile, Greece, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uruguay except serious human rights violations. International Criminal Tribunals was created as International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) to prosecute individuals for genocide, crime against humanity, war crimes, and crime against aggression. Reparations and compensation have been paid in Germany, Switzerland, and Timor-Leste (CHS: 2003:11). These all measures relate more to human rights, but less in terms of human security.

However, Nepal did not establish Commissions for Truth, Disappearance, and Peace and Rehabilitation even seven years of Comprehensive Peace Accord signed on November 21, 2006. Nepal does not have economic security too. Corruption is widespread in Nepal that leads the nation towards the culture of impunity. Every ambitious Nepali competes for power and politics not for to serve people and nation, but to commit for corruption.

Human security is beyond legal approach of human rights to address the underlying causes of inequality and violence at nation, region, and globe levels. Freedom from fear and freedom from want are freedom from violence and freedom from poverty. Human security is vague and unclear measure. It is state-centric to human centric notion in the world. It opens new dimensions of human security within the UN system and other international organizations in addition to all people of the world taken as individuals (Pathak: July 1, 2013: 7). Human security is absence of definite limitations as it includes everything in the universe considering risk to security. Inclusion of anything and everything from military to non-military parameters such as climate change, border security, terrorism, diseases, and basic needs to individual security has been a great challenge for the formulation of policy of human security. The powerful nations are against on the formulation of human security policies to all people and nations. Moreover, powerful nations fulfill their vested political interests in the name of implementation of definite parameters of human rights. Thus, human right has been incorporated by each state at its international relations and foreign policy.

On the whole, human security is a non-hegemonic and complementary concept of human rights. Both have contesting relationship on the course to advocate its nature: personal life, liberty, dignity, and development.

Conclusion

Although, human security is an age-old concept, its practice initiated after the end of Cold-War I and beginning of Cold-War II. The issue of human rights (capitalism – the economy controls the government and parties) against the people’s rights (communism-the government and parties controls over all aspects in the country including economy) played a significant role to wipeout politico-ideological warfare. The gap of communist ideology is being replaced by identitism: caste-ethnicity, culture, sex, class, color, resource, region, and religion that begin to surface along with Cold-War II (Pathak: February 5, 2013:2). The identitism finally gave a birth of personal human security against previous idea of collective state security or community security. As much as the identitism conflicts shall be propound for 150 to 200 years from now, the debate and discussion of human security would be more proliferated from community, region and nation to a broad range, an important global issue. If the intervention of human rights does not function under the vested interest of powerful nations, human rights shall solely be function as a core under the umbrella of human security. Thus, the impact of human security and human rights shall be seen in all generations that ultimately give a neutral path to respect, defend, promote, and fulfill the needs and interests of a person without prejudice and color.

Three human rights generations was first proposed by Czech jurist Karel Vasak in 1979.  Generation I leads to Civil-Political Rights. The participation of political life with full liberty is called first generation which protects individuals’ civil and political rights from state’s or group’s excessive use of power. Generation II guides Socio-Economic Rights. The equal conditions and treatment on economic and social rights is termed as second generation that ensures equal citizenry rights. Generation III focuses to Collective Rights. The collective development rights of people and groups is called third generation. It is a fraternity that constitutes a broad class of rights such as women, children, minorities, physically challenged, and so forth.

Only three generations mentioned above could not cover the needs, interest, and hope of people in this diversified present identitism universe. I, hereby, propose four additional generations, namely Generation IV on Right to Peace, Generation V on Right to Dignity, Generation VI on Right to Personal Sovereignty, and Generation VII on Right to Shared Responsibility on the course to ensure genuine human security to all that fulfills the dreams and ambitions of all individual to groups, communities, nations, and regions to worldwide.

Cumulative efforts through absence of silence and civil disorder, judicial equity, and reculturation[22], fraternity, and security are called fourth generation (right to peace) which only achieves when hungry are feed, unemployed are employed, vulnerable are protected, marginalized are included, and freedom are unrestricted. The respect, protection, and promotion of human worth without distinction is called fifth generation (right to dignity) that enlightens the concept of dignified citizens, culture, faith, and idea[23]. A sovereign people implies the intrinsic, inalienable, and non-derogatory power and authority to determine his/her path and destiny are called sixth generation (right to sovereignty) in which sovereign person shall have free will to choose one’s action and reaction action without being forced or ordered to by the state or another person to brings constructive change in the society. Present world faces numerous external and internal threats ranging from climate related disasters, organized crimes, armed violence including terrorism, human trafficking, health pandemics, and economic downturns. The mitigation or transformation of such daunting challenges within and beyond nation working together harmoniously is called seventh generation[24] (right to shared responsibility) that shall bring change on the free lifestyle of All closer to egalitarian society.

While international covenants on ICCPR and ICESCR were drafting in 1966, the US and its allies gave a top priority to first generation, but former USSR and its allies were seen on behalf of second generation. Such trend continues in the entire Cold-War I and II. Freedom from fear is a vision of collective security for preventing catastrophic terrorism and use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, reducing the risk of war and use of force and encouraging mediation, peacekeeping, and peace-building processes (UNGS: March 21, 2005:24-33).

Human security is a protection of life, liberty, security, dignity, and integrity. It prevents from a violent threats facing by people. Such violent conflicts link with poverty, inequalities, discriminations, restrictions, and unequal distribution of resources. For protection and promotion of people in emergencies and conflicting situations, a broad range of safety or conflict sensitivity measures with do no harm approach shall be developed, taken, and intervened. Human security is a broad, but it is human to nature or universe-centered, not state-centered. The state-centered to human centered security approach is a basic concept of human rights. Human security and human rights (mega, meso and micro-levels respectively) serve as common concerns, purposes, and mutually reinforcing elements. However, human security and human rights seem partly competitive on the course of intervention[25] because of broad vs. limited and priority vs. non-priority criteria.

The world is need less-armed, but more funded to human security to restores peace, security, and harmony. The genuine compliance of security and rights may prevail social harmony in the world irrespective of poor and developed nations, caste, ethnicity, color, sex religion, region, political or other opinion, social origin, property, birth or other status. Thus, today’s urgency is to transform the negative synergy into the positive one through the indirect/direct informal and indirect/direct formal peace talks (dialogue) among the conflicting interest parties from inharmonious to harmonious relations coping with peace-conflict lifecycle approach.

REFERENCES:

1. Alkire, Sabina. 2002. Conceptual Framework for Human Security paper presented at Kennedy School. Harvard University.
2. Alkire, Sabina. 2003. A Conceptual Framework for Human Security. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford. Working Paper 2.
3. Amnesty International. April 2011. Security with Human Rights. London.
4. Annan, Kofi. 2000. “Secretary-General Salutes International Workshop on Human Security in Mongolia.” Two-Day Session in Ulaanbaatar, May 8-10, 2000. Press Release SG/SM/7382.
5. Axworthy, Lloyd. 1997. Canada and Human Security: the Need for Leadership. In International Journal, 52.
6. Ayoob, M. 1997. ‘Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective’. In K. Krause and M. C. Williams, eds., Critical Security Studies: Cases and Concepts. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
7. Bajpai, Kanti P. August 2000. Human Security: Concept and Measurement. Kroc Institute: Occasional Paper No. 19.
8. Bajpai, Kanti. August 200. Human Security: Concept and Measurement. Kroc Institute Occasional Paper No.19.
9. Baldwin, David A. 1997. The Concept of Security. British International Studies Association. Review of International Studies. Vol. 23. Issue 1.
10. Buranelli, Filippo Costa. Undated. Human Security and Human Rights. Online available at http://www.academia.edu/1125368/Human_Security_and_Human_Rights
11. Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen (eds.). 2007. International Security. London: SAGE.
12. Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen. 2009. The Evolution of International Security Studies. London and New Yorl: Cambridge University Press.
13. Buzan, Barry. 1983. People, State and Fear: The National Security Problems in International Relations. London: Harvester Wheat-sheaf.
14. Buzan, Barry. 1984. People, States. In Journal of Peace Research, 21.
15. Carnahan, Wolf. 1998. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Online available at http://www.sjsu.edu/people/cynthia.rostankowski/courses/119a/s4/The%20Epic%20of%20Gilgamesh.pdf
16. Constitution of the United States September17, 1787. [Online]  http//www.law.emory.edu/pub-cgi/pr…usconst.
17. Cranston, Maurice. 1973. What Are Human Rights? New York: Taplinger Publishing Company
18. Dembski, William A. June 2004. Reflections on Human Origins. On available at http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf [March 18, 2013]
19. Discovery Channel: Why did the Egyptian built pyramids? Online available at http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/why-egyptians-build-pyramids
20. Estrada-Tanck, ED. Undated. Human Security and Human Rights under International Law: Crossroads and Possibilities. Online available at http://www.operationspaix.net/DATA/DOCUMENT/4553~v~Human_Security_and_Human_Rights_under_International_Law__Crossroads_and_Possibilities.pdf
21. Freitas, Raquel. 2002. “Human Security and Refugee Protection after September 11: A Reassessment.” in Refugee: Canada’s Periodical on Refugees, Vol. 20, No. 4.
22. Gandhi Vidhya Mandir. February 11-13, 2012. International Seminar on Teacher Education for Peace and Harmony. Rajasthan
23. Giri, Ananta Kumar. May 2012. Transformative Harmony: An Invitation for Harmony. Madras: Madras Institute of Development Studies.
24. Global Peace Index. 2013. Sydney and New York: Institute for Economics and Peace.
25. Guardian. June 11, 2013. Global Peace Index 2013: The Full List. Online Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/11/global-peace-index-2013
26. Hai, Nguyen Hong. 2008. Human Rights-Human Security-Human Development. Thailand: Mahidol University.
27. Hampson, Fen Osler,  Jean Daudelin, John B. Hay, Holly Reid, and Todd Marting. 2002. Madness in the Multitude: Human Security and World Disorder. Oxford University Press.
28. Harappa. Online available at www.harappa.com.
29. History of Civilization. Online available at http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab25
30. Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. UK
31. Howard Adelman. Spring 2001. From Refugees to Forced Migration: The UNHCR and Human Security. Wiley-Blackwell. International Migration Review 35.
32. Human Security at the United Nations. 2012. New York: Human Security Unit.
33. Jolly, Richard and Deepayan Basu Ray. May 2006. Human Security Framework and National Human Development Reports. UNDP. NHDR Occasional Paper 5.
34. Jose, San. December 2, 2001. Declaration adopted by the Workshop on Relationship between Human Rights and Human Security. Costa Rica. Online Available at http://humansecurity-chs.org/doc/sanjosedec.html.
35. Kant, Immanuel. 1795. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Online Available at https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm.
36. Kawamura, Akio. 1977. Human Rights and the ‘Asian’ Perspectives. OSAKA: Asian Pacific Human Rights Information Center. No. 10.
37. Keizo, Takemi. 2002. Health and Human Security: Moving from Concept to Action-Fourth Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia’s Tomorrow in Pamela J. Noda (ed.). ‘Evolution of the Human Security Concept.’ Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.
38. Kempen, Piet Hein van. February 4, 2013. Four Concepts of Security-A Human Rights Perspective. In Human Rights Law Review.
39. King, Gary and Christopher Murray. 2001-2002. ‘Rethinking Human Security’. Political Science Quarterly. Volume 116, Number 4.
40. Klaus, Knorr. 1973. National Security Studies: Scope and Structure of the Field, in Frank N. Trager and Philip S. Kronenberg (eds.). ‘National Security and American Society: Theory, Process and Policy’. Lawrence.
41. Knudsen, Olav. F. 2001. ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization’. Security Dialogue, 32(3).
42. Krause, K and M. Williams. 1997 Critical Security Studies: Concept and Cases. London: UCL Press.
43. Lasswell, Harold D. 1950. National Security and Individual Freedom. New York: McGraw Hill
44. Lawson, Edward. 1996. “Introductory Essay” in Encyclopaedia of Human Rights. USA: Tylor and Francis.
45. Leaning, Jeniffer and Sam Arie. December 2000. ‘Human Security: A Framework for Assessment’. In Conflict and Transition.  USAID.
46. Lippmann, Walter. 1943. U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic. Boston: Little Brown.
47. MacFarlane, S. Neil and Thomas Weiss. 1994. “The United Nations, Regional Organizations and Human Security: Building Theory in Central America”. Third World Quarterly, 15, 2.
48. Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1532. The Prince. Antonio Blado d’Asola.
49. Mahmud, Hasan, Muhammad M. Quaisar, and Abdus Sabur. December 2008. “Human Security or National Security: The Problems and Prospects of the Norm of Human Security”. Journal of Politics and Law. Vol. 1. No. 4
50. Menon, Sudha. 2007. Human Security: Concept and Practice. Ahmedabad: ICFAI Business School.
51. Mushakoji, Kinhide. Winter 2012. Three Reasons Why We Should Study Human Security. Journal of Human Security Studies. Japan Association for Human Security Studies.
52. Nylan, Michael. 2001. The Five “Confucian” Classics. Yale University Press/New Haven and London.
53. Oberleitner, Gerd. February 13, 2003. Human Rights and Security – The Two Towers? Centre for the Study of Human Rights Discussion Group.
54. Oberleitner, Gerd. June 2002. Human Security and Human Rights. European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy. Occasional paper series no. 8
55. Ogata, Sadako and Amartya Sen et al. 2003. Human Security Now. New York: Commission on Human Security.
56. Online Available at http://treaties.un.org
57. Online Available at http://www.ancientmilitary.com/ancient-chinese-military.htm
58. Oved, Kav La and Pourakhi. July 2011. Nepal: Briefing to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.  Amnesty International. 49^th Session.
59. Owens, H., and B. Arneil. 1999. ‘The Human Security Paradigm Shift: A New Lens on Canadian Foreign Policy? Report of the University of British Columbia Symposium on Human Security’. In Majid Tehranian, ed., Worlds Apart: Human Security and Global Governance. London: I. B. Tauris.
60. Paleri, Prabhakaran. 2008. National Security: Imperatives and Challenges. Tata McGral-Hill.
61. Paris, Roland. 2001. Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? In International Security. Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Vol. 26, No. 2.
62. Pathak, Bishnu. 2005. Politics of People’s War and Human Rights in Nepal. Kathmandu: Bimipa Publications.
63. Pathak, Bishnu. 2013. Concept of Human Security. Germany: TRANSCEND Peace University.
64. Pathak, Bishnu. December 3, 2012. Principles of Harmony. Basel: TRANSCEND Media Service.
65. Pathak, Bishnu. February 2013. Principles of Interfaith and Religious Harmony. Moscow: Global Harmony Association.
66. Pathak, Bishnu. February 5, 2013. Transitional Security. Kathmandu: Transitional Justice Resource Center.
67. Pathak, Bishnu. July 1, 2013. Origin and Development of Human Security. TRANSCEND Media Service.
68. Pathak, Bishnu. July 1, 2013. Origin and Development of Human Security. Germany: TRANSCEND Media Service.
69. Pathak, Bishnu. November 2, 2008. The United Nations: Challenges for Peace. http://docsfiles.com/pdf_situation_update_79_un_peace.html
70. Pathak, Bishnu. April-June 2013. Transformative Harmony and Inharmony in Nepal’s Peace Process. Gandhi Marga: Mahatma Gandhi University, Vol. 35, No 1.
71. Pradhan, Gauri. Unpublished. Human Rights and Human Development. Kathmandu: NHRC
72. Ramcharan, Bertrand G. 2002. Human Rights and Human Security. The Hague.
73. Richard Schultz, Roy Godson, and Ted Greenwood (eds.). 1993. Security Studies for the 1990s. New York.
74. Rothschild, Emma. 1995. “What is Security?” In The Quest of World Order. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. 124, No. 3.
75. Seidensticker, Ellen. February 5, 2002. Human Security, Human Rights, and Human Development. US: Kennedy School, Harvard University
76. Semashko, Leo. 2012. The ABC of Harmony. New Delhi: Global Association of Harmony and Gandhi Bidhya Mandir
77. Sen, Amartya. July 14-21, 1997. Human Rights and Asian Values. The New Republica.
78. Sen, Amartya. July 28, 2000. Why Human Security? A Paper presented at the “International Symposium on Human Security” held in Tokyo.
79. Sharma, Subhash. January 3, 2012. Harmony Through Joining of Heart and Spirit (JHS): Towards JHS Vision for Social Harmony without Hierarchy. Bangalore: Indus Business Academy (IBA)
80. Shaw, Malcolm N. 1977. International Law. London: Cambridge University Press.
81. Sivananda, Sri Swami. 1997. All About Hinduism. Uttar Pradesh: A Devine Life Society Publication.
82. Smoke, Richard. 1975. National Security Affairs. In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.). “Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 8: International Politics”. Reading MA.
83. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2001. Aristotle’s Political Theory. Stanford University.
84. Tarnopolsky, Noga. September 1, 2011. Israel: Netanyahu’s problematic wife. USA: Global Post.
85. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Assyrian International News Agency. Online available at http://www.aina.org/books/eog/eog.pdf
86. The New Oxford Dictionary. 2001. Pyramid. New York: Oxford University Press.
87. The World Bank and the Copenhagen Declaration: Ten Years After. September 20, 2004. Social Development Department Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Network.
88. Thomas, Caroline. 2000. Global governance, development and human security the challenge of poverty and inequality. London and Sterling: Pluto Press.
89. Tiwari, Nandalal. July 11, 2013. Leaders’ Lilliputian Mindset. Kathmandu: Gorkhapatra.
90. Transparency International. July 9, 2013. Global Report Barometer 2013. Berlin
91. UN Trust Fund for Human Security. December 2011. Human Security. New York.
92. UN Trust Fund for Human Security. September 10, 2009. Human Security in Theory and Practice. New York. Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
93. UNDP. 1994. Human Development Report 1994. New York: Oxford University Press.
94. UNDP. 2004. Afghanistan National Human Development Report 2004: Security with a Human Face; Challenges and Responsibilities. Islamabad: Army Press.
95. UNDP. May 2006. The Human Security Framework and National Human Development Reports. NHDR Occasional Paper 5.
96. UNGS. March 21, 2005.  Report of the Secretary-General on In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all. New York. A/59/2005.
97. UNTFHS. September 10, 2009. Human Security in Theory and Practice. New York. Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
98. Vivekananda, Swami. Undated. Hinduism as a Religion. The World’s Congress of Religion.
99. Von Tigerstrom, Barbara. 2007. Human Security and International Law: Prospects and Problems. Hart, Oxford and Portland Oregon. In Studies in International Law: Vol. 4.

100. Wall of China Project. 2013. History of the Great Wall of China. Antique Now.

101. Webster’s Dictionary. 1989. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English. New York: Portland House.

102. Wolfers, Arnold. Dec. 1952. National Security” as an Ambiguous Symbol. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 4.

103. Yao, Xinzhong. 2000. An Introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge University Press.

NOTES:

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 17 Mar 2014.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Human Security and Human Rights Harmonious to Inharmonious Relations, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Comments are closed.