To what extent has Human Security succeeded in bridging development and peacebuilding?

To what extent has Human Security succeeded in bridging development and peacebuilding?

7th September 2021 0 By Lorraine J. Hayman

[Written October, 2019]

Human security focuses on “…the protection of individual human lives”[1]. It is an alternative to the “national security paradigm”[2], which focuses on the security of the state from other states, where the sovereign state is responsible for protecting its citizens. Human security became a policy focus in the years after September 11th, 2001, as the “limitations” of the ‘national security paradigm’ became “glaringly obvious”; states were unable to protect their citizens from terrorist attacks despite an increase in anti-terrorism legislation[3]. A prerequisite for human security is globalisation; in a globalised world, states lose their sovereignty because individuals, who gift the state their sovereignty, are no longer connected to specific states. Thus, the state no longer has the power or ability to provide security. This paper will consider the extent to which human security has succeeded in bridging development and peacebuilding. Development is good change; human development is an ethical approach, expanding human freedoms through “a process of enlarging human choices and strengthening capabilities”[4]. The 1992 Agenda for Peace conceptualised peacebuilding to “…identify and support structures which…strengthen and solidify peace to avoid a relapse into conflict”[5]. This paper considers human security a successful theoretical bridge between development and peacebuilding to some extent. Arguably, the March 1999 Ottawa Treaty is an example of this success in policy[6]. However, there are convincing critiques of human security which limit the extent it has succeeded in bridging development and peacebuilding, such as it being ambiguous and “prioritising the concerns of the developed world over the developing.”[7] Overall, this paper argues human security has only succeeded on bridging development and peacebuilding to a limited extent, as it can be used to legitimise intervention from the West into developing states, it securitises issues, and it can be hijacked by states national security agendas.

Human security is a “broadening and deepening of security”[8], placing humanity at the centre of security needs. It focuses on protecting the elementary rights and freedoms of individuals, it “… entails a commitment to development…”[9], and supports ‘empowered’ people to progress from war to reconciliation and peace. Encompassing human security are different ontologies; the ‘narrow’ approach considers the “absence of threats to the physical security or safety of individuals” and ‘broad’ approach, explored in Sen and Ogata’s 2003 ‘Human Security Now’ report, looks at “threats posed to the ‘vital core’ of human well-being by hunger, poverty, underdevelopment, ill-health, inequality and illiteracy”[10]. The ‘narrow’ approach towards human security aims for Galtung’s negative peace and absence of direct violence, “freedom from fear”, achieved through peacebuilding, whereas a ‘broad’ approach aims for Galtung’s positive peace and focus on human development to overcome structural violence, “freedom from want”[11]. Schirch argues human security “has been promoted as a strategic narrative link to human development, human dignity, state-society relations, governance, and peace…”[12] Considering the ontologies collectively illustrates human security is a theoretical, ‘strategic narrative’, bridging development and peacebuilding, as each approach considers either the absence of direct violence necessary in peacebuilding or focus on human development. Human security can be regarded as a theoretical prerequisite for development and peacebuilding. What is debatable is the extent to which this bridging can be viewed as successful, as having succeeded. 

Human development, or Sen’s ‘Development as Freedom’, considers “economic unfreedom can breed social unfreedom, just as social or political unfreedom can also foster economic unfreedom”[13], advocating once people are free from these ‘unfreedoms’ they can exercise their agency and bring about positive change in their lives[14]. The 1994 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report (HDR) articulates development issues have become security issues, shifting the policy focus from development being a choice to being essential[15]; thus, development is securitised and rebranded as human security. Arguably, this is because the UN wish to highlight the importance of development as an issue of security, as globally approximately one billion people are undernourished and over seventy armed conflicts rage, most of them in some of the least developed states. Spear and Williams consider “statistics like these” as the reason for security and development being so central to theories and policy[16], including peacebuilding. Peacebuilding can encompass a range of things, like improving respect for human rights and promoting conflict resolution and reconciliation[17]. The liberal peace framework aims to combine “democracy, free markets, development and the rule of law”[18], providing structures and tools for peacebuilding and the expansion of people’s choices, such as entering the market and democratic institutions. Liberal peacebuilding is considered to have a telos, an endpoint, achieved through various undertakings[19]. Thus, from the perspective of human development and liberal peace advocates, the ‘strategic narrative’[20] of human security could illustrate it has succeeded in bridging human development and liberal peacebuilding theoretically to some extent, advocating the protection and advancement of people’s freedoms in a linear process.

Browning reflects there have been “tangible” [21] results in human security addressing ‘freedom from fear’, illustrating practical examples of human security succeeding in bridging development and peacebuilding to some extent. For example, Brown and Grävingholt consider donors promote human security “as an organising principle for their aid and foreign policy objectives”, which has led to Non-Governmental Organisations making human security more central in their programme designs[22] and gaining additional funding. Yet, the “most celebrated” example of addressing ‘freedom from fear’ is the Ottawa Treaty, signed and ratified by 156 states, which banned the use of anti-personnel landmines: “…such arms facilitate and foster armed conflicts…and contribute to creating unstable environments that undermine prospects for development.”[23] In this example, human security policy led to practical successes in peacebuilding and addressing the arms trade, which was undermining development opportunities. Furthermore, the Ottawa Treaty’s success led to an additional global initiative to control the arms trade, to formalise a treaty regulating the arms trade with “the specific aim of banning the sale of arms to countries where there is a substantial risk of their being used to violate human rights.”[24] The progress towards peacebuilding measures like banning anti-personnel landmines has led to good change, whereby communities develop their infrastructures ‘free from’ the ‘fear’ of these landmines, and the international community is trying to reform the arms trade to protect individual’s security. Viewing human security from a liberal peacebuilding perspective, which advocates this ‘top-down’ approach, the Ottawa Treaty is, therefore, a successful empirical example of human security bridging development and peacebuilding, leading to an expansion of freedoms through the removal of landmines and supporting structures to prevent a return to conflict.

Despite some examples of human security succeeding in this bridging to some extent, there are critiques which limit these successes theoretically, in policy and practical application. This paper argues human security is too ambiguous both conceptually and in states’ policy. If human security has theoretical, and therefore political, limitations, it affects the extent to which it can succeed in bridging development and peacebuilding. If human security is flawed, it impacts the success of this bridge. Chandler and Hynek consider “…human security has…become an amorphous and unclear political concept” which is tainted by the “imposition of neo-liberal practices and values on non-Western spaces…”[25] Considering the implementation of the Ottawa Treaty and subsequent attempts to regulate the arms-trade, this critical approach argues this imposed Western practices and values onto non-Western spaces. This is a flaw in human security policy, connected to critiques of human development and liberal peacebuilding, as it applies the understanding of what security, development, and peacebuilding is from a Western perspective, applying this to spaces which may perceive them as something altogether different.

Moreover, Richmond states human security is a “…empty concept…” which is deployed as “cover for social engineering…to provide a veneer of legitimacy for intervention projects”[26]. Human security is arguably another way the Global North controls and influences the Global South, as Duffield argues, deducing which states are ineffective, insecure and deserving of development[27]. Duffield and Shani consider human security aims to secure the west through containing the inequality capitalism creates in post-colonial states: it “…‘securitises’ development and reproduces the colonial racial hierarchy in an age of globalisation.”[28] Human security policy can arguably be a tool to contain inequality through controlling the Global South. With its ambiguous paradigm, human security still operates within a Western universal framing advocated by “liberal legalists” and “developmentalists”[29], and is arguably used to legitimise Western intervention projects. Thus, this paper considers from the perspective of critical scholars and arguably those having ‘top-down’ human security imposed on them, human security cannot be considered a successful bridging between development and peacebuilding; it lacks actual legitimacy from the people affected by security issues but instead provides intervention projects with the ‘veneer’ of legitimacy. Moreover, it is debatable whether this human security would prevent a return to conflict; those who have had it ‘imposed’ on them from above are perhaps unlikely to respect the structures and institutions it advocates.

Pupavic considers framing human security in ‘empowerment’ terms can be critiqued as “the demise of the developing state”[30] as “the poor are…seen as the agents of change…rather than external actors”[31]. In 2006 Gordon Brown said “‘A century ago people talked of “What can we do to Africa?” Last century, it was “What can we do for Africa?” Now in 2006, we must ask what the developing world, empowered, can do for itself’”[32]. This approach is arguably shifting towards the concept of resilience, defined by the UNDP as “the capacity to adapt and to thrive in the face of challenge”[33], and often explored as synonymous to human security. From this perspective, ‘the empowered’ ‘resilient’ individuals can navigate their way to the social, cultural, psychological and physical resources which are necessary to sustain their well-being. This paper considers a fundamental problem with the language of ‘empowerment’ and ‘resilience’ is it implies these are things that can be ‘done’ to people, by the presumably already ‘empowered’ and ‘resilient’ Global North. Shani states the cultural contexts within which the individual realises their unique identity through this ‘empowerment’ is not considered in theoretical and policy application of human security[34]. The assumption that individual humans are alike, and therefore can be collectively ‘empowered’, ignores differences. Thus, this human security is unlikely to lead to good change or adequately support the structures of peace for all, unique, individuals.

Moreover, this language suggests individuals who are already considered ‘resilient’ no longer require aid, and, therefore, if they are unstable, unsuccessfully resisting or adapting to “shocks”[35], it is because they are arguably part of the problem. This paper considers approaching human security as synonymous to ‘resilience’, and advocating the ‘empowerment’ of individuals, objectifies humans, implying when ‘empowered’ we can look after ourselves. This is a contradiction in human security theory, as emphasising resilience makes the individual human less important, because resilience can also apply to the environment; the tenet of human security, human development, and peacebuilding is the protection of individual human lives and human freedoms. Thus, this contradiction suggests a political and theoretical limitation to human security, synonymous with resilience, successfully bridging development and peacebuilding.

Browning argues debates around human security have led to practical policy implementation which prioritises developed states over developing states[36]. The ambiguity of human security confuses what the boundaries for it are; how prioritisation between different commitments should occur: and who should make human security policy decisions and on what grounds[37]. Human security can be “co-opted” by states and aligned with states national security concerns[38]. For example, Browning considers “…the merger of human security concerns with more traditional security agendas…”, is illustrated in the UK’s development aid budget in 2013, which “directed [aid] towards its strategic priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq…”[39]  Therefore, arguably human security can be reoriented in national security concerns, which implies it is only a successful bridge between development and peacebuilding when and where developed states deem it to be so in their national security policy. Human security is supposed to also protect individuals from the state, which can be a source of insecurity: Shani, therefore, argues “…the concept of human security compliments or even reinforced the doctrine of national security.”[40] Thus, this limits the extent human security can succeed in bridging development and peacebuilding, as if ‘co-opted’ by states’ national security policies, it fails to protect individuals from the insecurity the state could cause them.

Feminist Critical scholarship considers human security “does not radically depart from the statist concept of national security” reinforcing gender-blind human security[41]. An example of human security mirroring national security is in 2010, the United Kingdom’s government listed an influenza pandemic as Tier One priority on its National Security Strategy. Browning notes “the same level of international attention, mobilisation, and urgency…” “…is only noticeable [in] its absence in respect of other diseases which already kill millions worldwide…”[42] For critics of human security, the disjuncture seen in the securitisation of influenza and the international attention paid to it, but not to malaria, for example, reflects that diseases like malaria are primarily restricted to developing states and of limited concern to developed states[43]. This can arguably affect peacebuilding structures in developing states, as diseases like malaria lead to insecurity and barriers to development. Furthermore, securitisation can also lead to human security being used to ‘secure’ individuals in the name of protection. Thus, this is a political and practical example of the limited extent human security succeeds in bridging development and peacebuilding, as it prioritises the security concerns of developed states over developing states and can be used to legitimise securitisation,[44] therefore, emphasising the security, development and peacebuilding needs of individuals in developed states over the needs of individuals in developing states.

In conclusion, questions of human security are controversial, because the answer depends on the “ideological position or theory one adopts”[45]. Considering the ontologies of ‘narrow’ and ‘broad’, human security bridges development, good change, and peacebuilding, which supports structures preventing a return to conflict; a ‘narrow’ approach seeks to prevent further violence, and ‘broad’ aims to overcome structural violence through human development. However, human security has theoretical, political, and practical limitations, which limit how far it has succeeded in bridging development and peacebuilding. This paper considers from a theoretical perspective, human security successfully bridges human development and liberal peacebuilding to some extent, and an empirical example of this success is arguably the Ottawa Treaty. However, critique by scholars like Duffield, suggest human security aims to secure the West by containing the inequality capitalism creates in post-colonial states[46], rather than expanding people’s freedoms and maintaining structures for peace. Additionally, human security can be ‘co-opted’ for the benefit of states national security policy, such as when the UK issued a Tier One priority during an influenza pandemic[47]. This limits the success of human security as the state can also be a cause of insecurity, which individuals may need protecting from. Furthermore, considering human security as synonymous with resilience, which sees ‘empowered’ individuals being responsible for their security and development, implies the responsibility of the individual for any ‘insecurity’ they may face. This is problematic, as arguably, human security fails to pay enough attention to the security issues of minorities, as the referent object of human security is the universal citizen, “who remains abstract”[48]. Overall this paper considers human security has only succeeded in bridging development and peacebuilding to a limited extent, as it is too ambiguous, arguably unachievable, is used to legitimise intervention from the Global North in the Global South, and can be ‘co-opted’ by states’ national security agendas, thus, it is not facilitating good change, nor is it maintaining structures to prevent a return to conflict.

Bibliography

  • Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
  • Brown and Grävingholt. In van Uffelen, Gerrit-Jan. Making the Human Security approach work, ZOA’s Human Security programming in DRC, Burundi, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda and Afghanistan. The Netherlands: ZOA Policy and Practice Paper, 2017. Accessed October, 2019. https://www.zoa-deutschland.de/content/uploads/Making-the-Human-Security-approach-work.pdf
  • Brown, Gordon. In Chandler, David. “Development as Freedom? From Colonialism to Countering Climate Change”. In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 115-130. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.
  • Chandler, David. Peacebuilding, the twenty-years crisis, 1997-2017. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. (2017).
  • Chandler, David, Hynek, Nik (eds). Critical Perspectives on Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2011.
  • Chandler, David. “Development as Freedom? From Colonialism to Countering Climate Change”. In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 115-130. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.
  • Deloffre, Maryam Zarnegar, “Will AFRICOM’s Ebola response be watershed moment for international action on human security?”, Washington Post (blog), Washington: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post, September 2014.
  • Duffield. In Chandler, David, Hynek, Nik (eds). Critical Perspectives on Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2011
  • Firchow, Pamina, Anastasiou, Harry. Practical Approaches to Peacebuilding: Putting theory to work. London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2016.
  • Futamura, Madoka, Newman, Edward, Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou. “Towards a Human Security Approach to Peacebuilding”. United Nations University, Issue Number 2, (2010).
  • Hinton, Alexander Laban, Shani, Giorgio, Alberg, Jeremiah. “Rethinking Peace Studies”. In Rethinking Peace, edited by Alexander Laban Hinton, Giorgio Shani and Jeremiah Alberg, Pp. 5-13.1st Ed. London, Rowman & Littlefield International, 2019.
  • Newman, Edward. In Peou, Sorpong. Human Security Studies, Theories, Methods and Themes. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2014.
  • Peou, Sorpong. Human Security Studies, Theories, Methods and Themes. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2014.
  • Pupavic. In Chandler, David. “Development as Freedom? From Colonialism to Countering Climate Change”. In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 115-130. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.
  • Schilling, Janpeter , Nash, Sarah Louise , Ide, Tobias, Scheffran, Jürgen , Froese, Rebecca von Prondzinski, Pina. “Resilience and environmental security: towards joint application in peacebuilding”. Global Change, Peace & Security Vol., 29:2, (2017). Pp. 107-127, DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2017.1305347
  • Schirch. In van Uffelen, Gerrit-Jan. Making the Human Security approach work, ZOA’s Human Security programming in DRC, Burundi, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda and Afghanistan. The Netherlands: ZOA Policy and Practice Paper, 2017. Accessed October, 2019. https://www.zoa-deutschland.de/content/uploads/Making-the-Human-Security-approach-work.pdf
  • Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  • Sen, Amartya, Ogata, Sadako. Human Security Now. New York: Commission on Human Security, 2003. Accessed October, 2019. https://bit.ly/2JraOos
  • Shani, Giorgio. Religion, Identity, and Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2014.
  • Shani, Giorgio, Sato, Makoto. Protecting human security in a post 9/11 world: Critical and global insights. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
  • Shani, Giorgio. “Empowering the Disposable? Biopolitics, Race and Human Development.” In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 99-113. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.
  • Spear, Joanna, Williams, Paul D. Security and Development, Global Politics, A Critical Comparison. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2012.
  • Richmond, Oliver p. in Chandler, David, Hynek, Nik (eds). Critical Perspectives on Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2011.
  • Richmond, Oliver P., and Jason Franks. “Liberal Hubris? Virtual Peace in Cambodia.” Security Dialogue Vol. 38, no. 1 (March 2007). Pp. 27–48. DOI:10.1177/0967010607075971.
  • UNDP HDR. In Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
  • United Nations Development Report, 1990. In Shani, Giorgio. “Empowering the Disposable? Biopolitics, Race and Human Development.” In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 99-113. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.
  • World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank. Roots of Resilience—Growing the Wealth of the Poor. Washington, DC: WRI, (2008).

[1] Shani, Giorgio, Sato, Makoto. Protecting human security in a post 9/11 world: Critical and global insights. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

[2] Shani, Giorgio. Religion, Identity, and Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2014.

[3] Shani, Giorgio, Sato, Makoto. Protecting human security in a post 9/11 world: Critical and global insights. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

[4] United Nations Development Report, 1990. In Shani, Giorgio. “Empowering the Disposable? Biopolitics, Race and Human Development.” In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 99-113. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.

[5] Richmond, Oliver P., and Jason Franks. “Liberal Hubris? Virtual Peace in Cambodia.” Security Dialogue Vol. 38, no. 1 (March 2007). Pp. 27–48. DOI:10.1177/0967010607075971.

[6] Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

[7] IBID., pp. 69.

[8] Kraus, Williams, Buzan et al., in Shani, Giorgio. Religion, Identity, and Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2014.

[9] Shani, Giorgio. Religion, Identity, and Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2014.

[10] Sen, Amartya, Ogata, Sadako. Human Security Now. New York: Commission on Human Security, 2003. Accessed October, 2019. https://bit.ly/2JraOos

[11] IBID., pp. 1-2.

[12] Schirch. In van Uffelen, Gerrit-Jan. Making the Human Security approach work, ZOA’s Human Security programming in DRC, Burundi, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda and Afghanistan. The Netherlands: ZOA Policy and Practice Paper, 2017. Accessed October, 2019. https://www.zoa-deutschland.de/content/uploads/Making-the-Human-Security-approach-work.pdf

[13] Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

[14] United Nations Development Report, 1990. In Shani, Giorgio. “Empowering the Disposable? Biopolitics, Race and Human Development.” In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 99-113. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.

[15] UNDP HDR. In Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

[16] Spear, Joanna, Williams, Paul D. Security and Development, Global Politics, A Critical Comparison. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2012.

[17] Richmond, Oliver P., and Jason Franks. “Liberal Hubris? Virtual Peace in Cambodia.” Security Dialogue Vol. 38, no. 1 (March 2007). Pp. 27–48. DOI:10.1177/0967010607075971.

[18] Mandelbaum. in IBID.

[19] Hinton, Alexander Laban, Shani, Giorgio, Alberg, Jeremiah. “Rethinking Peace Studies”. In Rethinking Peace, edited by Alexander Laban Hinton, Giorgio Shani and Jeremiah Alberg, Pp. 5-13.1st Ed. London, Rowman & Littlefield International, 2019.

[20] Schirch. In van Uffelen, Gerrit-Jan. Making the Human Security approach work, ZOA’s Human Security programming in DRC, Burundi, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda and Afghanistan. The Netherlands: ZOA Policy and Practice Paper, 2017. Accessed October, 2019. https://www.zoa-deutschland.de/content/uploads/Making-the-Human-Security-approach-work.pdf

[21] Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

[22] Brown and Grävingholt. In van Uffelen, Gerrit-Jan. Making the Human Security approach work, ZOA’s Human Security programming in DRC, Burundi, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda and Afghanistan. The Netherlands: ZOA Policy and Practice Paper, 2017. Accessed October, 2019. https://www.zoa-deutschland.de/content/uploads/Making-the-Human-Security-approach-work.pdf

[23] Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

[24] IBID., pp. 64.

[25] Chandler, David, Hynek, Nik (eds). Critical Perspectives on Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2011.

[26] Richmond, Oliver p. In IBID., pp.120.

[27] Duffield. In IBID., pp. 121.

[28] Duffield and Shani. In Shani, Giorgio. Religion, Identity, and Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2014.

[29] Peou, Sorpong. Human Security Studies, Theories, Methods and Themes. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2014.

[30] Pupavic. In Chandler, David. “Development as Freedom? From Colonialism to Countering Climate Change”. In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 115-130. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.

[31] Chandler. In IBID., pp. 118.

[32] Brown, Gordon. In IBID., pp.119.

[33] World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank. Roots of Resilience—Growing the Wealth of the Poor. Washington, DC: WRI, (2008).

[34] Shani, Giorgio. “Empowering the Disposable? Biopolitics, Race and Human Development.” In Development Dialogue, edited by Frederik. Soderbaum and Jens Stillhoff Sorensen, pp. 99-113. No. 58. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 2012.

[35] Schilling, Janpeter , Nash, Sarah Louise , Ide, Tobias, Scheffran, Jürgen , Froese, Rebecca von Prondzinski, Pina. “Resilience and environmental security: towards joint application in peacebuilding”. Global Change, Peace & Security Vol., 29:2, (2017). Pp. 107-127, DOI: 10.1080/14781158.2017.1305347

[36] Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

[37] IBID., pp. 66.

[38] IBID., pp. 66.

[39] IBID., pp. 71.

[40] Shani, Giorgio. Religion, Identity, and Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2014.

[41] Peou, Sorpong. Human Security Studies, Theories, Methods and Themes. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2014.

[42] Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

[43] IBID., pp. 69.

[44] IBID., pp. 69.

[45] Peou, Sorpong. Human Security Studies, Theories, Methods and Themes. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2014.

[46] Duffield and Shani. In Shani, Giorgio. Religion, Identity, and Human Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2014.

[47] Browning, Christopher. S. International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

[48] Peou, Sorpong. Human Security Studies, Theories, Methods and Themes. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2014.