VNU Journal of Scimce; Legal Studies. Vol, 31. No. I (2015) 30^2
DISCUSSION
Sustainable Human Security: An Integrated Approach for Institutional Social Responsibility and Governance Capacity
Development Fostering Human Protection, Sustamable Development and Multi - Sector Empowerment
Nguyin Khic Hai*', Marco Tavanti^
'VNU School of Law. Hanoi. IMXudn Thuy Street. Ciu Gidy. Hanoi. Vietnam -University of San Francisco. School of Management (SOU)
Received 06 January 2015 Revised 26 February 2015, Accepted 20 March 2015
Abstract: The concept of "sustainable human security" provides an mtegrated framework for adequately addressing developmem and cooperation in complex situations of conflict, violence andVarility From the 1994 Human Development Report (HDR), the nonon of human secunty has evolved beyond ttaditional national and mihtary security and includes such issues as development and respect for human rights. Expanding on the international commumtys efforts to agree on a comprehensive Post.2015 development agenda, the notion of sustainable human security provides an even more integrated approach relevant to governments and societies affected by extreme poverty, recurring conflicts, systemic violence, human rights violations and exploitation of natural resources. The comprehensive framework has practical imphcations for the govemance capacity development approaches as well as for program momtonng and evaluation and multi-sector partnerships. As human security shifts the attention from a stale-centered to a people-centered approach to security, sustainable human security aims at considermg envuonmental and systemic elements inherent to the understanding and resolution of contemporary and future human insecurities.
Keywords. Human Security, Development, Sustainability.
1. Introduction agenda expressed in the Millennium Development Goals ( M D G ) , numerous human In the year 2000, while world governments security concerns were raised. That very same agreed on comprehensive development year, the United Nations launched the idea of an independent Commission for H u m a n Security,
* Corresponding author, Tel, 84-946555595 which was formalized three years later Email: vnucnminology®gamil.oom reaffirming the global human responsibiBty
Sustainable human secunly integrates the nonon ot
national security with human development, human nghts, toward 'freedom of Want' and 'freedom ttom human dignity and systemic change It provides a fear' [ 11. Development - specifically addressed framework international relanons and global coopeiauon
pohcies for transitional societies in the "freedom from want" needed to be
N.K. Hai. M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31. No. 1 (2014) 30-42
recognized in the "old" challenges of poverty, education, health, but also in the 'nevi'' opportunities represented by opportunities, sustainability and partnerships. Primarily all States but all actors in our increasingly globalizing were clearly perceived as 'socially responsible' for both the 'opportunities' and 'threats' of a globalized society affected by ongoing terrorism, economic crises and environmental vulnerability. This paper explores the evolution of human security emerging from national perspectives into sustainable integrated frameworks and institutional capacity development implications.
The notion of sustainable human security is a paradigm that suggests most of the contemporary understandings on human security, human development, human dignity and human sustainability. The notion of sustainable human security emerges from at least thirty years of reflections in line with sustainable development; human rights based development, human security and human development. The World Commission on Environment and Development and the Human Development Reports have been instrumental in making an integrated notion of sustainable development as a precursor for sustainable human security- Along with other important United Nations documents and world conferences, they have contributed to comprehensive definition of human security including the social, environmental and political aspects. In the next sections of this paper we present how human security integrates well with sustainable, institutional, and systemic perspectives for adequately responding to the global (trans- border) challenges and opportunities of our human societies.
2. From National Security to Human Security Modern global slavery, pandemic health crises, international criminal organizations, economic crisis, international terrorism, mass migration and refugee crises illustrate the vexing "beyond border" challenges of the 21^' century. These kinds of threatsoperate outside of nationally protected borders and state responsibilities. They require coordinated international cooperation through multilateral mechanisms and adequate infrastructure, to mitigate, prevent, protect, and remedy the damages to vulnerable populations. Effective interventions and institutions require different paradigms from those developed in the l?""
Century around the notion of state-centered 'national security'. With that traditional idea, states had a monopoly of rights and means toprotect its citizens. The establishment and reinforcement of state power and state secunty would simply guarantee order, prospenty and peace. Unfortunately, the numerous in-state social problems and inadequacies of these models, 21st century challenges these state- centered notions and required a re-examination of security in its more complex forms. Since 2000, there have been several studies and intemational reports that have reaffirmed tiie shift from national security to "human security", hi spite of the numerous national examples and state leadership approaches that simply resemble old models, the trends to reconsider security from beyond national borders and centered on human protection, human possibibUes and human participation seems to be an irreversible and necessary process.
Human security is not necessarily substitute to national security. The state remains the fundamental purveyor of security and human secunty complements state security by
N.K. Hai, M. Tavanii/ VNU Jou,.a, ofScence- Le.al Siudies, Vo, 31. No. 1 (2014) 30-42
enhancing human rights, strengthening human development, and recognizing human dignity.
The Cold W a r largely shaped die traditional notions of security concentrating its concerns on the State's abihty to counter external threats.
Using die "human security" notion, the comprehensive and "beyond national identity"
notion of humanity becomes the focus of attention and discernments for what constitute
"threats" and "security". The mutual dependency that "national security" has with
"human security" depends on the fact that national efforts may be insufficient, inadequate (or sometimes contradicting) the guarantee of people's security. In this respect, the notion of global citizenship - in itself an oxymoron - is actually helpful in understanding the rights and responsibilities of multi-stakeholder actors, sectors, institutions and organization [2], Various multilateral mechanismsfor legitimizing intervention in an inter-national (not necessarily global) legal environment are very helpful but often inadequate. The design, ratification and alignment of conventions and treaties would need to b e expanded and applied around updated topics that adequately address the main tiireats to human survival. Although national security addresses some shared topics
Table 1: Comparing National and Human Security [3]
with human security, t h e e m p l ^ s i s responsibility implications change withi^_
"human" raUier tiian a "national" perspecf^
The Obama administi-ation, especially v ^ . input provided under Secretary of State i f i U ^ i Rodham CUnton and the US ambassador t Q ; ^ ^ United Nations Samantha P o w e r s , has n ^ advances m die integration of national secm^.
with human security. Although wifli numeroiK controversies and backlashes, as in the case ctf the Libya intervention and the 2 0 1 2 B e n ^ a ^ attack, the US national security policies haVe been strategically integrating Women empowemient and combatting trafficking m - persons with smart power approaches iHi military, political, economic, environmenfel,- maritime, and cyber securities. Despite some politically dnven short-term perspectives of US foreign policy, tiie n o w established 3D approach (Development, Diplomacy and Defense), reflects many of die development and human dignity concems of h u m a n security while preserving the national preoccupaticMi for adequate and effective defense. T h e following table briefly summarizes the relation hffitween national security and human security with their common characteristics and different en^hasis.
National Secunty Human Security States (primanly military)
National organizations Securing territories, including economic and political interests of the state
Terrorism, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) Originated by unfriendly states, weak states, and rival states.
Individuals (multi-stakeholders and multi-sector)
Intemational organizations Security wellbeing of individuals and community so that they can live free from fear, want, and free to live in dignity
Poverty, crime, diseases, inequality, lack of biodiversity, etc.
Originated by non-state actors and translational issues like climate change, repressive regimes and illegally armed groups
N.K. Hai,M. Tavanii/VNU Journal of Science Legal Siudies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014)30-42
StrengUis Military power, t productivity, control of borders, appeal of values
National interests, national Saws, national politics
Level of opportunities, tolerance and equality in society, women empowerment level along the Human Development Index (HDI) capturing quality of life, educational opportunities, and life expectancy Universal human needs and values, intemational law, conventions and treaties
Clearly the notion of human security, much m o r e than national security, incorporates values and paradigms associated with human development. T h e field of intemational human development h a s been associated with the promotion of wellbeing, along policy priorities like empowerment, inclusiveness, sustainability, equity and productivity. The study and practice of intemational human security h a s to d o with security, stability, and sustainability of development gains along policy goals for protection and promotion of h u m a n survival (freedom from fear), daily life (freedom from want), and the avoidance of indignities (life of dignity). T h e close association of human security with human development helps u p to better understand how it historically emerged and the sustainable trajectories of its current advances.
F r o m H u m a n Security to Sustainable H u m a n Security.
T h e notion of human security is a recent phenomenon. Although numerous documents have confirmed the fundamental relationship between peace, security, development and the environment, it was Uie 1994 U N D P Human D e v e l o p m e n t Report (HDR) that created and shaped the concept of h u m a n security [4]. Ten years later, Kofi A n n a n ' s 2005 report, entitled In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All.
demonstrated how the integration of these fields was interlinked to other UN reforms. Even
though several member states and scholars have failed to fully grasp the importance of modeling the intemational agenda and priorities toward human security, there is progress. For instance, twenty years after the H D R report, the notion of
"sustainable human security" appears to be a natural evolution and convergence of numerous achievements in the understanding and prioritization of human development, sustainable development and human rights. In addition, the recent inclusion of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that emerged after the 2012 Rio+20 Conference with the continuation of the M D G s in the Post-2015 development agenda is a promising sign. The integrated notion of sustainable human secunty represents the next stage in global responsibility to building a peaceful, secure, prosperous, and sustainable future for all. It integrates concems for peace, poverty, pollution and participation with a human-centered perspective.
T h e notion of sustairiable human security emerges from at least thirty years of reflection in line with sustainable development, human rights based development, human security and human development. The 1983 Bnindtland Report, Our Common Future, was groundbreaking achievement in defining the concept of sustainable development
"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet ± e i r own needs." [5]
T h e World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Brundtiand
NK Hai, M. Tavami / VNU 3oun,al of Science: Legal Siudies. Vol. 3L No 1 (2014) 30-42
Commission for tiie leadership of Gro Harlem Brundtiand, former Prime Minister of Norway) insisted on the importance of going beyond tiie traditional economic and physical understanding of development and poverty, and it provided a definition for including social, environmental and political aspects. It also insisted that "development" is about improving our common situation, for both developed and developing countries.
This human-centered understanding of development reached a fuller understanding with the pubtication of the first Human Development Report (HDR) and the
introduction of the 1990 Human Development hidex (HDI). Under the leadership and vision of Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq and LidiSa ' Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, the report p l a i ^ people at the center of the development p r o c ^ and reassessed development not only On economic terms, but also on health and education. Poverty was contextiialized Hot simply in economic terms, but as a quality of life matter. Therefore, ratiier than simply concentrating on capital wealdi, developmaa began being envisioned in terms of providing choice and freedom, with "people" representmg
"the real wealth of a nation" [6].
Sustainable Human Security in Development
Uniled NalionB Conterencs on Eitvironmenl and DEvelopmenl (UNCED). Earth Summl
Agenda 21
Report D-the Worid Commisscn on Enmronmenl and Developraenl (WCED), BnindUand Report' Out Comrron Future
liied NaBons Conference on SusUina
•pmenl, Rio+20 Suslainabie Develoi Goals (SDGsJ Future We WanI
Integrated goalsfcr poverty
IneqiQtilyAdjuslad Human Developmsnt Indsx [I HDI) Uullidimensicnal Pouerly Index
BaboialedfroirvanDiiS! s I Copynghl e Dr Man^o Tavanb, 2013
The sustainable challenges to and opportunities in - development were further defined during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, togetiier with the 2002 Rio+10 (or
Johannesburg Summit), and the 2012 Rio+20 Summit. Analysis of documents that emerged from these summits clearly underscores the importance of integrating economic factors in
N.K. Hdi, M. Tavanii/VNU Journal of Science: Legal Siudies, Vol 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42
development (prosperity) with social (people), environmental (planet) and govemance (political) elements. The Agenda 21 document that emerged from the first Earth Summit further highlighted the governmental and intergovernmental responsibilities necessary for executing sustainable development at local, national and intemational levels. Additionally, the Johannesburg Summit most certainly contributed to the integration of govemance into the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainability. It also reaffirmed the governance commitment toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and further advanced understanding of sustainable capacity development. Unfortunately, the event was eclipsed by the heavy political, security and military pressures emerging from the War-on Terror in the immediate Post 9/11 period. The Future We Want documents emerging from the RioH-20, as well as tiie merging of tiie Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the MDGs in the Post-2015 development agenda, reaffumed the need for a sustainable, human centered development approach. In spite of the many shortcomings and setbacks, the global understanding and intemational commitment to a better worid have converged into a more integrated approach. Sustainable human security is a paradigm that encompasses most of these understandings and developments.
The Intersecting Dimensions of Sustainable Human Security.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who included "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" in his celebrated 1941 State of die Union Speech, anticipated a broader understanding of human rights and what later came to be known as "human security". Since then, our understanding of human security has been evolving, just as it has for human rights. It
started with first-generation concepts of civil and political rights (e.g., right to life and political participation), morphed into a second- generation focus on economic, social and cultural rights (e.g., the right to subsistence), and emerged from the process as the so-called third-generation of solidarity rights (e.g., right to peace, right to clean environment). Since 1994, the notion of human security has expanded into four pillars and typologies of fear, sifting from an emphasis on nation-states to a human-centered perspective. For example, reflections emerging from the practices of human security in Japan have emphasized the
"freedom from want" aspect [7]. Likewise, those emerging from Canada have emphasized
"freedom from fear". [8] Meanwhile, Kofi Annan's In Larger Freedom (2005) introduced yet another expansion of traditional notions of human security: freedom to live in dignity - just as the 2005 introduction of die notion of environmental security expanded the paradigm, thus evincing a fourth expansion of human security that incorporates sustainable institutional reforms of global environmental governance [9]. We emphasize, however, that just as with the expanding notion of human rights, human security is indivisible. Thus, no state or program should stress one aspect of human security at the expense of others.
Although die literature on human security is significant, more work is needed to deepen our understanding of the integrated notion of sustainability with human security and the implications on sustainable development, human rights, labor rights, environmental rights, anti-corruption, climate change, and international law among others [10]. This said, the following is a brief overview of the four expansions (or four pillars) of die current concept of "sustainable human security".
N K. Hai. M. Tavani, / VNU Journal of Science, l^gal Siudies. Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42
1. Freedom from Fear {Human Survival):
Human security is about human emergency. It starts with the protection of individuals and communities from natural and man-made disasters alongside other situations of violence and conflicts. However, this element of human survival cannot be dissociated from other forms of security, as violent du-eats are often strongly associated with poverty, lack of capacity, exploitation and inequity. Humanitarian emergency assistance, peace building, conflict prevention, management and resolution are part of the shared global responsibility to the foundation of human security. The difference with national security is that threats are perceived and evaluated not in relation to nation-states but to human beings and humanity. Personal security is integral to human security. Personal security is often interlinked with other forms of fear caused by community, political, national and public threats. The freedom from fear includes protecting people from physical violence, whether caused by governmental authorities, non-state actors, violent individuals, violent crime or other forms of abuse.
2. Freedom from Want (Human Development): Human security is about human development. It includes freedom from want often visible in extreme poverty, recurring poverty and systemic poverty. It is expressed by a subset of security fields well known in the development literature. These include economic security, food security, health security, educational security, and environmental securities. While "freedom from fear" is foremost about human survival and emergency, the "freedom from want" dimension of human security is foremost about human development and availability of opportunity. Economic security represents a system that guarantees a
basic income for individuals and famil^;,,, through adequately remunerative work m^: •
"decent work" [11]. A public policy system designed around the notion of ecomBm , security would also provide a publicly financgd- safety net as a last resort for unemploymeitt and other situations in which basic income from remunerative work is insufficient. Food securi^
is another central dimension of human secimty.
It implies tiiat all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food.
According to die United Nations, food insecurity is not caused by food availabiUty in itself, but by otiier factors such as food price speculation, poor distribution, lack of purchasing power, and inadequate policies, or deliberate strategies in violent contexts [12].
Health Security is also integral to human security. It is a major priority in the MDGs and it aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy Ufestyles.
3. Freedom from Shame (Human Dignity): Human security is about human dignity. Beyond the emergency and development foundation expressed in the freedom from fear and freedom from want, the third dimension of human security has to do with the recognition of the fundamental human rights of every individual. Hence respect for the mie of law and the body of intemational law that guarantee and promote quality of life in all its aspects is at the core of this dimension. This includes elements of diversity respect and human fulfillment in line with racial, ethnic, cultural, gender, socio-economic and other types of diversity. The respect, protection and preservation of human (biocultural) diversity in its intertwined dimensions of biological, cultural and linguistic is critical to diversity of life and the preservation of human life.
N.K. Hai. M. TavaMi/VNU Journal of Science: Legal Srudie.i. Vol. 31. No. 1 (2014) 30-42
4. Freedom from Vulnerability (Human SustainabiUiy): Human security is about human sustainability. The envbonmental challenges of our society have a human security perspective [13]. From this perspective, human security is closely related to environmental challenges and environmental security. The focus is the protection of people from short and long-term natural disasters, especially through
the reduction and mitigation of man-made threats in nature. These include access to clean water and resources in developing countries and climate threats due to pollution, global warming, and greenhouse gases that threat human survival in this planet. The objective and priorities of intervention are about diminishing human vulnerability while increasing resilience and building sustainable capacity.
Frameworks of Sustainable Human Security
Human Rights-based Approach to Sustainable Capacity
Deveiopment
Economic security Food secunty Health security Educatonal secunty Enviranmentai security
Economic sustainability Environmental sustainabili^
Social Sustainability Good Governance Community Realience
HUMAN DIGNIW freedom from
shame
Cultural Diversity 1 Human Rights / Equality and Fairness / Democratic partcipation
Decent work
An individual's human rights and development revolve around the possession of these four frindamental freedoms. The sustainable human security movement incorporates the notion that every human being has the right to hve in a secure environment.
live with access to all necessary resources, and live witii pride and dignity. The concept of
"sustainabiUty" in regards to human security altogether focuses on the long-term solutions for the overarching aspects of human security, including the institutional, economic, social.
N.K. Ha, M. Tavan,, / VNU Journal of Science- Legal Siudies. Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42
and environmental aspects. Since human development is one of the most important issues in the worid today, it is essential to have frameworks such as sustainable human security to create a foundation in which tiie fundamental freedom to human life can be fully exuberated and developed.
The sustainable human security framework offers essential guidelines for addressing the underlying causes of numerous levels of human insecurity. One of those insecurity levels rests in the social and political corruption plagumg many national governments today. Corruption, as further discussed below, systematically undermines the positive work being done through I sustainable human security framework [14]. In order for these essential human freedoms to become reality, anti- corruption methods must interlock and strongly reinforce the sustainable human security framework. The connection between these two frameworks can positively benefit each other while holistically and most effectively addressing tiie most destabilizing acts of cormption today. It is with this mindset we further inspect the characteristics of corruption.
Sustainable Capacity Development for Human Security.
The notion and frameworks of sustainable human security are helpful todiscem intemational policy priorities for intervention and cooperation. However, the principles alone are inadequate to obtain and sustain a global human community free from human insecurities due to violence, poverty, marginalization and vulnerability. The development of individual, organizational and institutional capacities are key for the fulfilhnent of this global social responsibility of our and future generations.
That is why "capacity development"- especially through the shaping and development
of appropriate legal, political, economic and -j social infrastmctures - has become die p^igdty of intergovernmental organizations and United -i Nations specialized agencies like the UNDP, OHCHR, UNHRC, UNEP, UNHCR among odiers. Building capacity has become „an essential strategy for achieving effect^^, sustainable and human intemational development. Numerous instimtions and organizations engaged in development focus on capacity building in tiieir missions, oper^ons and objectives. But what is capacity building?
In general tiiere are three levels of capacity building: personal, organizational and institutional. Effective strategies and metiiods for building capacity for sustainable human security need to aim at intervening and collaborating in initiatives and projects maximizing the "C3" core at the intersection of these three interconnected levels for capacity building: [15]
1) The personal/leadership level: with an emphasis on developing those essential skiUs and attitudes that allows young professionals to effectively engage in diverse cultures, complex political and social situations.
2) The organizational / managerial level:
with a support for enhancing organizational capacity to become self-sustained economically and in their ability plan, produce, assess and repUcat esustainable outcomes.
3) The institutional I systemic level: with a special assistance at providing the necessary legal frameworks for the promotion of human rights, labor rights, environmental rights and anti-cormption.
The institutional framework has always been recognized as being central for achieving a sustainable future. Yet, many still tiiink that a fragmented and non-institutionalized approach would generate an economically viable, socially
N.K. Hdi. M. Tavanii / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Siudies. Vol 31. No. 1 (2014) 30-42
inclusive and environmental bearable future.
Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, tiie Agenda 21 documents have played vital role in making concrete steps toward sustainable capacity development. The institutional capacity of a country is vital to the promotion, protection and participation into a sustainable economic, societal and environmental development. Along with financial capital, social capital and natural capital, institutional capital is the glue that holds together the sustainable fiiture we want. It is manifested in the govemance, rule of law, intemational engagement capacity. It emphasizes the importance of the normative and rule-making aspects of development. Twenty years later, the concept of three mumally reinforcing pillars of sustainable development needs to be recognized and incorporated into the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD). The role of local, state, national, regional and intemational institutions will highly influence the policies and practices integrated with sustainable development.
The "sustainable human security"
paradigm, intersected by the concrete steps offered by a "sustainable capacity development" echoes the notions and methods associated with the "human rights based approach". The achievement of sustainable capacity in people, organizations and institutions in development / transition passes tiu-ough human rights. Hence it enhances tiie institutional / systemic capacity, responsibility and sustainability of a right-based approach to development. Therefore, die SCII approach is a human rights-based sustainable development model centered on academic institutions and supported by cooperation and partnerships across public, private and nonprofit sectors [16]. The 1997 UNESCO Declaration on tiie
Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation integrates rights with responsibilities in the context of sustainable development and 'intergenerational solidarity.' Article 1 of the declaration states that "the present generations have the responsibility of ensuring that the needs and interests of present and future generations are fully safeguarded". The rights and responsibilities toward future generations are at the core of the very notion of sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." [17]
A rights-based typical intervention focuses on increasing the capacity of the rights-holders to claim their rights as well as increasing the capacity of the duty bearers to fulfill the rights of the rights-holders. The focus on rights is ultimately a contribution to increasing the institutional and people-centered sustainability.
Through this approach the human rights and institutional responsibilities are seen as part of the same equation for empowerment, accountability and, ultimately, capacity development. This is at the core of the human rights based approach to development. This human rights based approach to sustainable development (HR2SD) expands on die human rights-based approach to development (HRBA) by integrating and centering the notion of human rights and human development with the economic, social, environmental pillars of sustainabihty.
Appropriate projects, programs and policies aiming at promoting sustainable human security would need to employ a capacity development approach that is sustainable, systemic and human rights based. This will obviously require the active engagement of multiples stakeholders
N.K. Hai. M. Tavanii / VNU Jou,-nal of Science: Ugal Siudies. Vol 31. No. I (2014) 30-42
and a diverse set of actors and institutions. It would also require the active contribution of scholars from multidisciplinary perspectives tiiat could offer precise, integrated and appropriate solutions for a shared sustainable and secure future for all.
3 . Conclusion
In this paper we have discussed the emergence of new paradigms in the international community. The integrated global communities of our times, tiie shared human threats and intemational responsibility to adequately respond to today's cross-border challenges, requhes new integrated paradigms.
As "sustainabihty" is becoming central for intemational development, the political, institutional and systemic values of sustainability are central also for human security. Both "sustainability" (as the integration of social, economic, environmental and pohtical frameworks) and "human security"
(as the integration of freedom from fear, want and hfe in dignity) are integrated paradigms. In spite of the resistance of some scholars who prefer to narrowly define the world though their own subject specific lenses, the complexity of our world problems (poverty, cormption, human trafficking, chmate change, humanitarian disaster, and human rights, just to mention a few of the main challenges) require integrated and coordinated solutions. Only multidisciplinary, multilateral and multi-sector solutions could be adequate to respond to these challenges in the current and future times.
These approaches require capable individuals, organizations and institutions. They also requhe a "human rights" based approach that would consider empowerment of people (in their
rights) and die capacity development of institutions (in tiiefr responsibilities) for our common humanity and our common fiitiBe.
Although these considerations are d i e o r ^ a l and systemic in nature, tiieir importance is net to b e undermined as m a n y of t o d a y ' s practical solutions and policy priorities still lack such an integrated and multi-framework approach. This is a contribution diat only highlighte some of the main notions to b e considered, but diat can also b e easily translated into concrete and detailed blueprints for applying die notion of
"sustainable human security" into specific a r e ^ of intervention for instimtional social responsibility, g o v e m a n c e capacity development, human protection, sustainable development and multi-sector empowerment.
References
[1] The 2003 creation of the independent Commission on Human Security was an initiative of the Government of Japan with the active support of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, UNHCR, and UNDP.
[2] To leam more about the global citizenship and its relevance to global social responsibility and intervention read Clark, A. (2010). The ABCs of human survival: A paradigm for global citizenship. Edmonton; AU Press. See also ShaUcross, T., & Robinson, J. (2006). Global citizenship and environmental justice. Amsterdam:
Rodopi. Another good pubhcatlon is Cabrera, L.
(2010). The practice of global citizenship.
Cambndge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Adapted from various studies in human security including Reveron, D. S., & Mahoney-Norris, K.
(2011). Human security in a borderless world.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
[4] Human Development Report 1994, New Dimensions of Human Security. Available at http://hdr.undp org/en/reports/global/hdrl 9947.
[5] Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development Our Common Future. Available at http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm
N.K. Hai. M. Tavanii / VNU Journal of Science. Legal Siudies. Vol 51, No. I (2014) 30-42
[5] Access the full text and summaries of the UNDP's Human Development Reports (HDR) at htq)://hdr.undp.org/en/. See also Amartya Sen.
Development As Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1999.
[7] The Government of Japan considers Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want to be equal in developing Japan's foreign policy. See http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human_secu/.
[8] Canada has been a critical player in die efforts to ban landmines and has incorporated the "Freedom from Fear" agenda as a primary component in its own foreign policy. See also the works and contributions of the Vancouver, Canada's Human Security Report Project (HSRP) at http-//www,hsrgroup.org/.
[9] Bogardi, Janos, and Hans Gunter Branch. "Global Environmental Change: A Challenge for Human Security-Defining and conceptualising the environmental dimension of human security."
UNEO-Towards an International Environment Organization-Approaches to a sustainable reform of global environmental govemance (Baden- Baden: Nomos) (2005): 85-109.
[10] For an overview of the concept of human security in its expanding notions see: Goucha, Moufida, and John Crowley, eds. RethinMng human security. John Wiley & Sons, 2009. See also die valuable contributions provided by: Kaldor, Mary.
Human security. Polity, 2007; Human Security Centre. Human Security Report 2005: war and peace in the 21st century. Oxford University Press, 2005; McRae, Robert Grant, and Don Hubert, eds. Human security and the new diplomacy: Protecting people, promoting peace.
McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP, 2001; Tadjhakhsh, Shahrbanou, and Anuradha Chenoy. Human security: Concepts and implications. Routledge, 2007. You may also find additional resources and.
infomiation on human security in the WEInstitute human security online library at http://www.weinstitule.org/buman security.htm].
[11] The Intemational Labour Organization (ILO) has embraced the notion of 'decent work.' "Decent work sums up the aspirations of people in flien working lives. It involves opportunities for work that is productive and delivers a fair income,
security in the workplace and social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social mtegration, freedom for people to express their concems, organize and participate in the decisions that affect their lives and equaUty of opportunity and treatment for all women and men." Read more at www.ilo.org/global/topics/decenl-work [12] Tavanti, Marco. "From Famine to Food Security:
Understandings human and food security implications for Somalia and tiie Horn of Africa (HOA)." SomaUa Strategy Review, Vol. 1 (June) 2012: pp. 1-8.
[13] To further explore the human security dimensions of environmental challenges see tiie works of the Intemational Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) at http://www.ihdp.unu.edu and tiie United Nations University's Institute for Environment and Human Secunty (UNU-EHS) at htlp7/www.ehs.unu.edii/.
[14] Kumar, R. 2005. Corruption, human rights, and development: Sovereignty and stale capacity to promote good govemance. American Society of Intemational Law, Vol. 99; p. 416-419.
[15] Read more about 'sustdnable capacity" from the Sustainable Capacity International Institute (SCII) at http://www.sciinsdmte.org/capacity.html. Also find more resources on human security and capacity from tiie World Engagement Institute website and the Intemational Journal of Sustainable Human Security (USHS) at http://www.weinstitute.org/human-secuntyhmil.
[16] Dr. Marco Tavanti and Dr. Sfeir Younis have argued for the need of an mtegrated approach to sustainable capacity development - one that is based on human rights and institutional responsibilities. Read more from Tavanti, Marco&
Sfeir-Youms, Alfredo. "Human Rights .Based Sustainable Development: Essential Frameworks for an Integrated Approach "The International Joumal of Sustainabihty Policy and Practices.Vol. 8, 2013, Volume 8, Issue 3. pp21-35.
[17] UNESCO Declaration on tiie Responsibilities of the Present Generations Available at http://www.unesco,org/cpp/uk/declarations/genera tions.pdf.
4 2 N.K Hal. M. Tavann IWU loumal otSc.e.c, Legal Sli.die.. Vai 31. Na. 11.2014) 30-42
sJAn Ninh Con Nguai BSn Vung: Cach tidp c|n hop nhSt cho trach nhiem thd chS xa hoi va su phat trien nang l\tc
quan tri nhim tang cudng bao ve con nguai, phat trien hhn vftng va phat huy da thanh phan
Nguyen Khic Hai, Marco Tavanti
Khoa Ludi. Dal hoc Qudc gia Hd Noi. 144 Xudn Thiy. Cdu gidy. Hd Noi Trudng Dai hoc San Francisco. Khoa Quan ly. 2130 Fulton Street San Francisco
T6ni tit: An ninh con ngirm bSn vung hop nhit khii niem an ninh qu6c gia v « su phSt triSn con nguoi, quySn va nhin phjm con nguoi. su thay d6i he thdng. N6 cung cap Ithuon kho quan he quSc te va nhttng cMnh sach hop tac torn cSu cho nhOng xa hpi chuyin Soi. KhiSi niem "an ninh con ngutn" a day duoc phSn tich theo qua Mnh phat triSn thuat ngu co tinh lich su ciia Lieu Hiep Quoc va 4 cap do qudc t«. No cung duoc md rong va duoc lam ro dl h i k hon dgng luc hien tai ttong mdi quan hj voi nhttng thach thuc (vii nhttng co hdi ciia sir bin vung) vii ttong bdi canh phat trien nang luc the che mong thich vdi cac thanh phSn xa hdi cong cdng. tu nhan, dan su cd U6n quan d6n nhung thach thuc ciia qudc gia va qudc td ve bao ve va thuc day nhan phjm cua con nguoi thong qua cac quydn con ngudi gin voi ttach nhiem cua td chiic. Nghien cuu cung xay dung khU niem theo su phat ttien lich sir cua no tu an ninh qudc gia va hop nhSt cac quySn con nguoi vdi su phat tridn ben vftng. Nghien ciin nay se gdp phSn xiy dung ndn tang ly luan dd xem xet su phii hop va bit cap cila khai niem an ninh con ngudi bin vftng ttong bdi canh vd kha nang kinh tS-xa hdi va chi'nh tri-phap ly ciia timg quoc gia.
Tir khoa: An ninh con ngudi, su phat ttidn, u'nh ben vihig.
