Facing Global Environmental Change

This chapter is dedicated to the concept of human security and its link to energy and energy governance, particularly global energy governance. Through this focus emerges the need to look at the links between the concept of public goods and energy. Our starting argument is that conventional notions of energy security that are centred on the nation state are insufficient to ensure human security at an individual level (across the globe). Rather, what we refer to as ‘deep energy security’ is a necessary condition for human security and such security in turn requires a sustainable energy system. We further argue that one approach to strengthen deep energy security is to use the lens of the public goods concept to consider how aspects of a sustainable energy system should be provided. The chapter is structured as follows. We start by exploring the evolution of the concept of human security and its major components and then analyse the various ways through which energy is linked to this concept. We look at the links between energy and human well-being and security and between energy and human ill-being and insecurity. We then explore the contrast between the concept of human security and the conventional way in which energy security has been framed, contrasting the individual with the collective perspective.

Foreword. Section I: Environmental Change, Adaptation, and Human Security: Shaping the Debate. 1. Environmental Security and Competition for the Environment M. Redclift. 2. Social Responses to Environmental Change R.A. Matthew. 3. Strategies for Enhancing Human Security in the Face of Global Change M.S. Soroos. 4. Adapting to Environmental Insecurities: A Conceptual Model P. Le Prestre. Section II: Resources and Human Security. 5. Transportation's Oil Dependence and Energy Security in the 21st Century D.L. Greene. 6. Food Security Concepts M. Brklacich, S. Leybourne. 7. Water Resource Distribution and Security in the Jordan-Israel-Palestinian Peace Process S. Allal, M. O'Connor. 8. Sustainable Development and Environmental Security: A Pragmatic Approach for Hungary S. Kerekes. Section III: Regional Perspectives on Environment and Human Security. 9. Islands in the Midst: Environmental Change, Vulnerability, and Security in the Pacific C. Cocklin. 10. Institutional Adaptation to Global Environmental Change and Human Security in Central and Eastern Europe B. Jancar-Webster. 11. Providing Istanbul With Drinking Water: The Politics of Water Security in a Rapidly Growing Metropolis I. Turan, G.G. Turan. 12. Recent Greenhouse Gas Emission and Climatic Trends: A Comparison of Russia with Other Countries K.S. Losev, M.D. Ananicheva. 13. Environmental Changes Within Kyrgyzstan K.A. Karimov, R.D. Gainutdinova. 14. Sustainable Land Use: Methodology and Application A. Finco, P. Nijkamp. 15. A New Class of Global Models of Associative Memory Type as a Tool for Considering Global Environmental Change A. Makarenko, Z. Klestova. Section IV: Transboundary Issues. 16. Solving Transboundary Air Pollution Conflict: A New Framework for Countries in Transition E. Nikitina, V. Kotov. 17. Social Adaptation in Romania to the Chernobyl Accident B. Constantinescu, R. Bugoi. 18. 'Water Wars' and Water Reality: Conflict and Cooperation Along International Waterways A.T. Wolf. Section V: Institutional Capacity and Adaptation. 19. Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Implementation in Central and Eastern Europe J. Caddy. 20. Radioactive Contamination, Environmental Changes, and Strategies for Adaptation L. Uspenskaya. 21. Water Alliances in the Euphrates-Tigris Basin S.S. Guner. 22. Environmental Preservation Strategy in the New Romania: Institutional and Behavioural Challenges D.L. Constantin. 23. Environmental Change, Social Conflict, and Limits to Adaptation in Developing Countries E.B. Barbier, T. Homer-Dixon. Section VI: Environment, Health and Security. 24. Water Pollution and its Influence on Population Health D. Fayzieva. 25. Adapting to Climate Change in Bulgaria: An Economic Approach A. Danchev. Section VII: Measuring Environmental Change and Human Security. 26. Environmental Security and Sustainability in Natural Resource Management: A Decision Support Framework P. Nijkamp. 27. Mapping Human Insecurity S. Lonergan, et al. Index.

The term of energy security has evolved since the oil shocks of the 1970s and the concept of environmental security was used in the political debates and the scientific discourse since 1989 when the Cold War was winding down. The key thesis of this chapter is that since the early 1990s the concept of security has been fundamentally reconceptualized: It was widened (from the narrow political and military focus to include also the economic, societal and environmental dimensions), deepened (by broadening the reference object from the state [in national and international security] to human beings and humankind [in human security]) and it was sectorialized [by creating many sectoral concepts of food, water, health, soil, climate security et al.].This chapter primarily reviews this reconceptualization of the security concept that has direct implications for the understanding of the notions of environmental security (a new dimension) and energy security (a sectoral concept). This chapter also briefly discusses potential applications for the European cross-border energy supply infrastructure (e.g. of oil and gas pipelines) linking Russia, the Central Asian states and the MENA region with energy-deficient European countries. Oil and gas pipelines face a dual challenge of both geophysical (earthquakes) and hydro meteorological (e.g. forest fires) natural disasters as well as deliberate attacks on them by terrorist groups (e.g. in Iraq and in Algeria), and new political problems between Russia, the Ukraine and NATO countries. This chapter addresses selected environmental security challenges and impacts of both globalization and global environmental change (GEC), environmental security tasks and tools and possible environmental security applications and conceivable forms of institutionalization; it will conclude with a brief discussion of the potential contribution of integrated environment monitoring systems for the cross border energy supply infrastructure. The contextual change of the implications of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea peninsula for pan-European energy security will remain a key political and security challenge for the future relations between NATO countries and Russia.KeywordsEnvironmental and energy securityCross-border energy supply infrastructureEurope

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English]
 This article examines the concept of environmental security and assesses its role in international, regional and national security studies. The study is aimed at providing conceptual „mental map“ of this field, thereby giving analytical background and gui­dance for comprehensive environmental security studies, which are known for the diversity of conceptual approaches, methods and levels of analysis.The fundamental question of environmental security – how various environmen­tal factors (climate, resources, etc.) and processes can affect the security of states and societies. It examines the relationships between different environmental issues, their effects and various security problems. Environment is considered as integrated part of a security concept together with the dimensions of economic, social, energy or information security. In order to identify the main academic schools of the environmental security, this article uses four key questions, theoretically defining the core of environmental secu­rity concept: (i) what makes an impact (source of threat); (ii) to whom/what an impact is made („victim”); (iii) what kind of impact is made (threat); (iv) how an impact is made (mechanisms and “channels”). On the basis of these theoretical dimensions, five main academic schools of environmental security are identified and examined by focusing on their features and findings, methodology and critical assessment:1. Resource scarcity school examines the nexus between scarcity of renewable resources (e.g. freshwater) and various internal and international conflicts (their incidence, intensity and dynamics).2. Resource abundance school explores the relations between non-renewa­ble resources (e.g. diamonds, oil, etc.) and internal conflicts, especially civil wars.3. Climate change school focuses on nature (and human) induced environ­mental change and its implications for international security, socioeconomic development and social disruptions in various regions.4. Human security school focuses on environmental impacts on individual and “people-centered” security, which is closely related with sustainable develo­pment (food security, health and education, welfare, gender issues, etc.).5. Natural disasters school examines the socioeconomic impacts of various disasters (earthquakes, floods, etc.) with specific focus on the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of various social systems (states, communities, etc.).Analysis shows that environmental dimension becomes increasingly impor­tant element of international relations and security studies. Comprehensive security assessment, especially in developing countries, is not possible without taking into account the social and economic impacts made by resources, climate change and natural disasters.Research by 1 and 2 schools, despite various methodological problems, demons­trates the impact resources have to various internal conflicts and social disorder. Scar­city of renewable resources generates certain social effects (for example, decreased productivity of agriculture, migration, weakening of state institutions etc.), which, in turn, can fuel different types of conflicts (ethnic conflicts, coup d’état, poverty conflicts, etc.). Abundance of non-renewable resources can have various direct (for example, direct financial source for rebel groups), as well as indirect (affecting eco­nomy, political regime, separatism, etc.) impact to conflicts.Specific conditions in the developing countries play a significant role in terms of explaining the nexus between resources and security. Developing countries are often dependent on climate-sensitive agriculture and suffer from poverty. As a re­sult, various climate change effects (3 school) often amplify mechanisms, which lead to insecurity and violence, such as political instability, weak governance structures, poor economic performance, etc. This is especially relevant for those regions where several “conflict constellations” (water and food shortage, regular natural disasters, rapid demographic change, etc.) are overlapping. Environmental change also has a certain impact to international security in terms of possible increase in the number of weak and fragile states, risks for global economic development, intensification of migration, territorial disputes, etc.Generally, environmental security research (apart from the 1 and 2 schools) is based on a broad approach to security, which is not limited to military conflicts and include various elements of sustainable development and economic welfare. On the one hand, it is understandable, as interdisciplinary character of environmental securi­ty requires complex approach to security.On the other hand, research based on the concept of human security (4 school) often equates security with economic and social well-being, thus blurring the line between security and development studies. It also undermines the assessment of the impact environmental issues can have to traditional security problems (conflicts, regi­me change, political instability, etc.). Finally, securization of various social problems (AIDS, migration, poverty, gender inequality, etc.) might be used for political purpo­ses by legitimizing the use of military force or restricting human rights.Various natural disasters (5 school) have a substantial destructive power, which not only causes substantial damage (humanitarian crises, destroyed infrastructure, etc.), but also has complex socioeconomic and political effects, which affect politi­cal regimes, critical economic sectors, social stability, etc. From this perspective, a key role is played by physical and socioeconomic characteristics of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, which can absorb negative effects of natural disasters and mitigate the risk.

About one fifth of the world population, that is 1.2 billion people, live in extreme income poverty with less than one US $ a day. Another 1.6 billion have less than two US $ a day (CHS 2003: 73). Most of the poor live in severe livelihood uncertainty and lack access to basic education and health services. The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aim at cutting poverty in half by the year 2015. As health1 is considered crucial for poverty reduction, three MDGs focus directly on health, covering maternal mortality, infant mortality, HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The MDGs 4 – 6 directly concern health issues, while other MDGs such as goal three (“Promote gender equality and empower women”) and seven (“Ensure environmental sustainability”) deal with nutrition, water and sanitation and thus impact on health2 (see box 40.1). The concept of ‘human security’ has emerged slowly but steadily over the 1990’s –influenced by the end of the Cold War, the awareness of previously neglected insecurities and globalization– and the question was raised about the expected implications of this concept for health and human development (Chen/Narasimhan 2003a). There are various definitions3 of ‘human security’, which obviously “means different things to different people”4. This chapter applies the definition of the Commission on Human Security (CHS), that stated as the objective of human security “to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment” (CHS 2003: 4). The emergence of the concept of ‘human security’ will be briefly reviewed (40.2), before focusing on human, livelihood and health security (40.2.1) including current debates of human and health security in South and Southeast Asia (40.2.2) as well as the linkages of poverty, health and human security (40.2.3). Empirical evidence will be presented based on two case studies (40.3) on Vietnam (40.3.1) and Bangladesh (40.3.2). Lessons learned (40.3.3) will be summarized, before turning to the conclusions (40.4).

In the post–Cold War era, the concept of water security referred to the potential dangers of conflict over water resources and safety of drinking water infrastructure from attacks by military enemies or terrorists. By the 1990s, water security increasingly became discussed together with human security and such concerns as economic security, environmental security, energy security, and food security. The use of security jargon in the field of water resources signaled the importance of this resource for the survival of nations. Definitions of water security prominent in the 1990s focused on the quantity and quality of water supply for human welfare and economic development. More recently, an additional requirement for water management emerged, namely, the functioning of the biosphere as the basis for human well-being. The most recent definitions of water security embrace both human and ecosystem access to water, most often in the form of the so-called water-food-energy nexus with the emphasis on the links between these resources. However defined, the use of the “water security” concept is clearly on the rise in the circles of academics, government officials, and policymakers. However, it is not without its critics who challenge “water security” as failing to add value to the discussions of water governance. Indeed, the pre-eminence of intricate links between water, food, energy, and eco- and social systems has already been widely marked within the integrated water resources management (IWRM) discourse. The proponents of “water security,” in turn, argue for the complementarity of these two concepts. Another major debate running throughout the emerging “water security” literature is on whether it should be defined and operationalized in a broad sense as a framework for water management at multiple levels, or in a narrow sense, as a quantifiable index or a set of indicators.

Localized actionable evidence for addressing threats to the environment and human security lacks a comprehensive conceptual frame that incorporates challenges associated with active conflicts. Protective pathways linking previously disciplinarily-divided literatures on environmental security, human security and resilience in a coherent conceptual frame that identifies key relationships is used to analyze a novel, unstructured data set of Global Environment Fund (GEF) programmatic documents. Sub-national geospatial analysis of GEF documentation relating to projects in Africa finds 73% of districts with GEF land degradation projects were co-located with active conflict events. This study utilizes Natural Language Processing on a unique data set of 1500 GEF evaluations to identify text entities associated with conflict. Additional project case studies explore the sequence and relationships of environmental and human security concepts that lead to project success or failure. Differences between biodiversity and climate change projects are discussed but political crisis, poverty and disaster emerged as the most frequently extracted entities associated with conflict in environmental protection projects. Insecurity weakened institutions and fractured communities leading both directly and indirectly to conflict-related damage to environmental programming and desired outcomes. Simple causal explanations found to be inconsistent in previous large-scale statistical associations also inadequately describe dynamics and relationships found in the extracted text entities or case summaries. Emergent protective pathways that emphasized poverty and conflict reduction facilitated by institutional strengthening and inclusion present promising possibilities. Future research with innovative machine learning and other techniques of working with unstructured data may provide additional evidence for implementing actions that address climate change and environmental degradation while strengthening resilience and human security. Resilient, participatory and polycentric governance is key to foster this process.

At the beginning of the 2000s, the increased salience of the concept of human security was a welcome development both in academic and policy circles. Problematizing the state's central role as the principal object of security allowed human beings' security needs and concerns to be put in front and center, at least in theory, if not necessarily in practice. The increasing traction the concept got also allowed several non-traditional security threats, such as environment, health and migration, to be approached through security lenses and put on security agendas. Despite the burgeoning literature and the notable frequency at which the concept of human security got incorporated into policy discussions, it has lost, at least partially, its analytical traction and policy saliency. The lack of a clear definition as well as vague and tactical use of the concept by policymakers have raised concerns about the human security concept turning into an empty signifier. While the human security concept was welcome by some feminist approaches, it is also criticized by others. This article aims to discuss the human security concept through different feminist perspectives and understand its adaptability in the field based on a comparative interpretive analysis of feminist foreign policy initiatives by Sweden, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Spain, Chile and Luxembourg. To realize this aim, we analyze the conceptualization and implementation of feminist foreign policies and how they put the human security approach into practice. We seek to problematize how feminist foreign policies tackle the ambiguities and limitations within the human security framework, and to what degree these policies confront or maintain current power dynamics and state-centered security models. We argue that feminist foreign policies do highlight the problems related to gender equality and contribute to their solutions, but do not challenge patriarchy and the power relations behind it. As such, while they contribute to better implementation of human security as a guiding principle for foreign policy, conventional foreign policy concerns limit the change they can create on the ground.

Today’s security landscape is being shaped by an inherent Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity (VUCA). The threats and risks to safety and security derive from both man-made and natural circumstances. Events like Hurricane Michael (2018), Hurricane Maria (2017), COVID-19 pandemic (2020), Ebola Outbreak (2014–2016), Hurricane Katrina (2005), Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown (2011), Typhoon Haiyan (2013) and global terrorist events illustrate the devastating effects of natural and man-made disasters on human systems and human security (Masys et al. in Procedia Econ Financ 18:772–779, 2014 []). As reported in Masys and Lin (Asia/Pacific security challenges—managing black swans and persistent threats. Springer Publishing, 2017 []), over the past four decades there have been a growing number of small and medium-scale disasters which have resulted in a total loss of over US$1.15 trillion. This threat and risk landscape challenges regional security along such lines as: national security; energy security; water security; food security; health security; human security; environmental security; economic security. Considering the current COVID-19 pandemic, as of November 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has seen upwards of 60 million cases, 1.4 million deaths, and has significantly impacted the global economy and affected the most vulnerable. The impacts have seen the closure of borders, economic disruptions and failures, strained and overwhelmed health care systems, failure of supply chains all of which are contributing to a human and national security issue. The COVID-19 represents a national and global health security disaster revealing systemic vulnerabilities. A disease anywhere is a disease everywhere. Threats to global human security reside within disease vectors that are transnational making sensemaking an essential element of security. Sensing the threat and risk landscape that characterizes the security environment requires an understanding of the inherent systems, interdependencies, nonlinearity across the security domain. This chapter provides an overview of the complex security landscape and the inherent systemic risks that shape the security discourse.

In 2012, for the first time, the United Nations General Assembly agreed on a common understanding of the essence of the human security concept. This is a major advance in the mainstreaming of the concept, proof of the increasing recognition it has gained in the international community. The agreement also brings implicitly the need for progress in clarification and consolidation of the relevant alternatives for operationalization of the concept. One of those alternatives is human security reporting, as illustrated especially by the many assessments prepared in the UNDP series of global, regional, national and sub-national Human Development Reports. Each of them offers a window into the intricacies of generating insights through the contextualization of human security principles while engaging different actors into the conversation. An important step in the clarification and consolidation was the work of Jolly and Basu Ray (2006, 2007) who reviewed a large set of UNDP-sponsored studies and concluded that they confirmed the approach’s ability to add value, through situationally-responsive identification and exploration of what are relevant threats. The present study expands the work of Jolly and Basu Ray, based on a systematic and detailed review of National and Regional Human Development Reports (HDRs) on human security. The sample includes sixteen Regional and National Human Development Reports, and one additional report, and the study is informed also by review of some still emergent reports. The research was funded by the UN Trust Fund for Human Security and produced under the auspices of UNDP. Given the complexity of human security, the reports are initially reviewed using a set of basic questions on security, so that differences in focus and approach became clear: Whose security? Security of what? Security from what threats? Who are the security providers? What are the means for security? How much security? We then propose a classification of reports, which allows deeper analysis by comparing groups of reports that are similar, We identify four main types:1. Comprehensive mapping reports. These reports try to cover all major threats to all priority values, with reference to all relevant means.2. State-building reports. These reports see state collapse/failure as the greatest threat, indirectly, to human security, and so focus on this centrally important means, building a state.3. ‘Citizen security’ reports. These reports focus on a subset of values which are civil rights concerning the daily lives of ‘citizens’, notably the values of physical safety and freedom from unlawful dispossession.4. Other special-focus reports, centred on an identified lead challenge. These reports focus on some other single threatened value, or type of threat: e.g. food insecurity. For simplicity we call them ‘Challenge-driven’, though the other types of report also respond to challenges. Each group of reports is then reviewed in terms of: (1) Conceptual framework, (2) Approaches to measurement, (3) Policy relevance and (4) Integration with human development analysis. This generates a large number of interesting findings, and the paper will present a summary that updates, extends and deepens the analysis in the comparable summary paper by Jolly/ Basu Ray (2007). Some of the general findings include: Human security analysis is not only of use for addressing the situation of fragile states. Security, in the broader sense ingrained in the human security concept, is a common concern for all societies, although highly relative to the context. The reports reviewed show that the human security approach is flexible enough to respond to differences, while retaining analytical relevance and advocacy power.The first human security report on a country/region can sensibly include in its analysis issues already conventionally recognized as “security” matters, in order to show by comparison of the characteristics/consequences of different issues the value added by broadening the meaning of security beyond those conventional topics.Reporting on human security gains greatly by exploring both the objective and subjective sides of threats (and of the values threatened) and then systematically comparing them. There are powerful qualitative and quantitative methodologies for this, which have been very effectively used in several Reports.The analysis results in a more informed picture of the options for reporting on human security, the ways in which UNDP Country Offices have employed these options, and factors that newcomers should bear in mind when conceiving reports on human security.

No accessJournal of Human SecurityOther Journal Article01 January 2011Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear: A Human Security Approach to a New Middle East? Authors: Deborah Wheeler Authors: Deborah Wheeler Associate Professor, US Naval Academy, Department of Political Science, and Visiting Professor, American University of Kuwait, email: [email protected] Google Scholar More articles by this author SectionsAboutPDF/EPUBExport CitationsAdd to FavouriteAdd to FavouriteCreate a New ListNameCancelCreate ToolsTrack CitationsCreate Clip ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail Abstract In the Middle East, the persistence of authoritarianism and war, economic stagnation and the 'youth bulge', the proliferation of nuclear weapons, border disputes, competition over scarce resources, refugee problems, terrorism, human rights violations, tribalism, unresolved nationalisms and religious sectarianism make the region one where heads of state tend to place the security of their regimes over the security of the people. From a human security perspective, as explored in this article, states that pursue 'state security without investing in human security' unfortunately 'achieve neither' (UNDP, 2009, p. vi). My argument regarding the need to rethink Middle East security, for the sake of both state and society, is based upon seven years of field work in 10 Middle Eastern countries including Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. Part one of this article looks at the convergence of global change in the security environment, conceptual change in security policy making, and subsequent developments of a 'human security' approach. Part two traces the emergence of a local 'human security' dialogue in the Middle East, and illustrates how Arab intellectuals and policy makers are using the human security framework to press for more humane governance in the Arab world. A conclusion provides an assessment of the likelihood of a human security approach taking root in the region and shifting state priorities from regime survival to citizen wellbeing. Full Text DOI Previous article Next article RelatedDetails View PUBLICATION DETAILSDate of Publication:January 2011Journal:Journal of Human SecurityISSN:1835-3800Volume:7Issue:1Page Range:37-52First Page:37Last Page:52Source:Journal of Human Security, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011: 37-52Date Last Modified:05 September 2018 12:24Date Last Revised:06 October 2012Geographic LocationMiddle EastSubjectHuman rightsCivil rightsIslam and politicsHuman security METRICS Downloaded 0 times Copyright© Human Security Institute, 2011Download PDFLoading ...

There is overwhelming evidence for a direct and integral relationship between the human condition and the environment. Historically, early civilizations derived their needs from being hunters and collectors, from their association with great rivers and watersheds and biodiversity, in terms of flora and fauna that supported their needs for food, fuel, and shelter. Such examples are the almost mystical and religious relationships that exist between the Nile, the Euphrates, the Ganges, the Amazon and their human populations. It has been argued that the collapse of the great Aztec, Mayan, and Inca civilizations occurred when their exploitation of natural resources reached the point of unsustainability. The desertification of parts of Africa through deforestation and harvesting of firewood has manifested itself in the cycle of famine, disease, and civil wars.1 At the national levels, the irresponsible exploitation of natural resources and the environment has led to degradation of watersheds, landslides from denuded mountain and hill slopes, polluted water and streams, spread of diseases such as malaria and typhoid, and the excessive urbanization resulting from the migration from rural and hinterland areas to the cities and towns in pursuit of the material culture. The relationships between the environment and the human condition are the subject of much debate at international fora. The Convention on Biodiversity (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997) are two examples of the outcomes of policy debates that have been converted into political strategies. The vulnerabilities of the planet to catastrophic events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, and fires are very topical due to the massive loss of life, property damage, investments, and the scale of physical, emotional, and mental suffering. The newest manifestation of conflict after the damage to humankind and the environment from major wars, wars of attrition, chemical warfare, and civil wars, are terrorist attacks on the infrastructure to cause maximum trauma to humankind for political ends. Undoubtedly a combination of demographic growth due to population growth and environmental stress from increasing demand for resources will be a catalyst for social unrest and make for increasing vulnerability to intraand inter-state tensions and conflicts. Human security as now defined puts the individual at the centre of debate, analysis, and policy. “It is the individual who is paramount; government is an instrument of the people to protect human life and enhance human welfare”2. Environmental security is the relative public safety from environmental dangers caused by natural or human processes due to ignorance, accident, mismanagement or design and originating within or across national borders. This relationship between human security and environmental security forms the basis of international and national strategies to cope with the negative manifestations of the lack or absence of such security. Such strategies should stress the importance of international interde-

Nowadays, the concept of human security is an issue that is often discussed, especially when issues regarding policies or how a country deals with the Covid-19 pandemic make headlines in every news report. The concept of human security shifts the focus point of security which previously focused on the state to become towards individuals. Often various discussions collide these two concepts under the pretext of finding the best way for the state to make an appropriate policy, especially during emergencies such as problems caused by the Covid-19 Pandemic. So to solve this problem it is necessary to re-understand the priorities in the security of a country in an emergency situation, especially in Indonesia. This paper aims to find out what is prioritized by the state in the event of an emergency. Literature study or desk research becomes a research method, accompanied by a conceptual and regulatory approach, then secondary data is analyzed descriptively. Based on the research, it was concluded that the concept of state security or human security should not be made as if they are contradictory but instead complement one another and become a thinking construct for the state to determine a priority in order to achieve common interests through an insecurity faced in an emergency situation. The state as the shelter of an individual certainly needs to be a top priority without neglecting the security of every individual in it. The difference in focus on the concept of state security and human security should not make both of them an option.

This paper examines whether or not the Human Security approach is a paradigm of EU security policy. It focuses on two recently published EU documents: the European Agenda on Security (EAS) and the EU Global Strategy (EUGS). First, the concept of Human Security is explained. Next, the methodology of the research is presented, in which three questions are posed to identify the presence of the Human Security approach: Are they concerned with the security of people? Are threats broadly defined? Are entities that execute the EU’s security policy broadly defined? Analysis conducted within this paper shows that the EAS and EUGS have been built on the Human Security approach, meaning that it is a paradigm for EU security policy. In the conclusion, the author wonders whether the Human Security approach is well-suited to new challenges for security that have arisen in Europe after Russian aggression in Ukraine.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1994 proposed an all-encompassing concept of human security, which highlighted security of individuals along seven dimensions: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political. ‘Human security’ thus defined is likely to reinforce opportunities for human development, sustainable environment, food security and healthy societies for dealing with the sources of conflicts. Therefore, it can be argued that human security closely relates to social security, which in a broader sense refers to the elimination of conditions detrimental to the survival, functioning and progress of human beings and the creation of conditions for the enjoyment of a ‘full life’ with living conditions and amenities that are customary in the societies to which a person belongs. This work adopts this holistic definition of human security hinged on ‘freedom from want’ and concentrates on food security, shelter, health, education and work by highlighting issues related to individuals. It deals with the fundamentals of human security, its historical evolution, conceptual formation of each requirement and examines these ‘matters’ from the Muslim World perspective to highlight some pertinent issues. One such matter is the challenges of human security in the ten most populated Muslim majority countries.