Sustainable human security an integrated approach for institutional social responsibility and governance capacity development fostering human protection, sustainable development and multi

VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2015) 30-42

DISCUSSION
Sustainable Human Security: An Integrated Approach for
Institutional Social Responsibility and Governance Capacity
Development Fostering Human Protection, Sustainable
Development and Multi - Sector Empowerment1
Nguyễn Khắc Hải*,1, Marco Tavanti2
1

VNU School of Law, Hanoi, 114 Xuân Thủy Street, Cầu Giấy, Hanoi, Vietnam
2
University of San Francisco, School of Management (SOM)
Received 06 January 2015
Revised 26 February 2015; Accepted 20 March 2015

Abstract: The concept of “sustainable human security” provides an integrated framework for
adequately addressing development and cooperation in complex situations of conflict, violence
and fragility. From the 1994 Human Development Report (HDR), the notion of human security
has evolved beyond traditional national and military security and includes such issues as
development and respect for human rights. Expanding on the international community's 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 implications for the
governance capacity development approaches as well as for program monitoring and evaluation
and multi-sector partnerships. As human security shifts the attention from a state-centered to a
people-centered approach to security, sustainable human security aims at considering
environmental and systemic elements inherent to the understanding and resolution of
contemporary and future human insecurities.
Keywords: Human Security, Development, Sustainability.

1. Introduction∗1

agenda expressed in the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG), numerous human
security concerns were raised. That very same
year, the United Nations launched the idea of an
independent Commission for Human Security,
which was formalized three years later
reaffirming the global human responsibility
toward ‘freedom of want’ and ‘freedom from
fear’ [1]. Development – specifically addressed
in the “freedom from want” needed to be

In the year 2000, while world governments
agreed on a comprehensive development

_______
∗

Corresponding author. Tel.: 84-946555595
Email:
1
Sustainable human security integrates the notion of
national security with human development, human rights,
human dignity and systemic change. It provides a
framework international relations and global cooperation
policies for transitional societies.

30

N.K. Hải, 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 ‘new’
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 a
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 (transborder) challenges and opportunities of our
human societies.

31

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 21st
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 17th
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 security
would simply guarantee order, prosperity and
peace. Unfortunately, the numerous in-state
social problems and inadequacies of these
models, 21st century challenges these statecentered notions and required a re-examination
of security in its more complex forms. Since
2000, there have been several studies and
international reports that have reaffirmed the
shift from national security to “human
security”. In 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
possibilities and human participation seems to be
an irreversible and necessary process.
Human security is not necessarily a
substitute to national security. The state remains
the fundamental purveyor of security and

human security complements state security by


N.K. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

32

enhancing human rights, strengthening human
development, and recognizing human dignity.
The Cold War largely shaped the traditional
notions of security concentrating its concerns
on the State’s ability to counter external threats.
Using the “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 be expanded and applied
around updated topics that adequately address
the main threats to human survival. Although
national security addresses some shared topics

with human security, the emphasis and
responsibility implications change within a
“human” rather than a “national” perspective.
The Obama administration, especially with the
input provided under Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton and the US ambassador to the
United Nations Samantha Powers, has made
advances in the integration of national security
with human security. Although with numerous
controversies and backlashes, as in the case of
the Libya intervention and the 2012 Benghazi
attack, the US national security policies have
been
strategically
integrating
women
empowerment and combatting trafficking in
persons with smart power approaches in
military, political, economic, environmental,
maritime, and cyber securities. Despite some
politically driven short-term perspectives of US
foreign policy, the now established 3D

approach (Development, Diplomacy and
Defense), reflects many of the development and
human dignity concerns of human security
while preserving the national preoccupation for
adequate and effective defense. The following
table briefly summarizes the relation between
national security and human security with their
common characteristics and different emphasis.

Table 1: Comparing National and Human Security [3]

Actors

National Security
States (primarily military)
National organizations

Goals

Securing territories, including
economic and political interests of
the state

Threats

Terrorism, rogue states, weapons
of mass destruction (WMD)
Originated by unfriendly states,
weak states, and rival states.

Human Security
Individuals (multi-stakeholders and
multi-sector)
International 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. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

Strengths

Military power, economic
productivity, control of borders,
appeal of values

Basis

National interests, national laws,
national politics

Clearly the notion of human security, much

more than national security, incorporates values
and paradigms associated with human
development. The field of international human
development has been associated with the
promotion of wellbeing, along policy priorities
like
empowerment,
inclusiveness,
sustainability, equity and productivity. The
study and practice of international human
security has to do with security, stability, and
sustainability of development gains along
policy goals for protection and promotion of
human survival (freedom from fear), daily life
(freedom from want), and the avoidance of
indignities (life of dignity). The close
association of human security with human
development helps up to better understand how
it historically emerged and the sustainable
trajectories of its current advances.
From Human Security to Sustainable
Human Security.
The 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 the 1994 UNDP Human
Development Report (HDR) that created and
shaped the concept of human security [4]. Ten
years later, Kofi Annan’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

33

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,
international law, conventions and
treaties

though several member states and scholars have
failed to fully grasp the importance of modeling
the international agenda and priorities toward
human security, there is progress. For instance,
twenty years after the HDR 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 MDGs in the Post-2015
development agenda is a promising sign. The
integrated notion of sustainable human security
represents the next stage in global responsibility
to building a peaceful, secure, prosperous, and
sustainable future for all. It integrates concerns
for peace, poverty, pollution and participation
with a human-centered perspective.
The notion of sustainable 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 Brundtland
Report, Our Common Future, was a
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 their own needs.” [5]
The World Commission on Environment and
Development (also known as the Brundtland


34

N.K. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

Commission for the leadership of Gro Harlem
Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway)
insisted on the importance of going beyond the
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 publication of the first Human
Development Report (HDR) and the

introduction of the 1990 Human Development
Index (HDI). Under the leadership and vision of
Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq and Indian
Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, the report placed
people at the center of the development process
and reassessed development not only on
economic terms, but also on health and
education. Poverty was contextualized not
simply in economic terms, but as a quality of
life matter. Therefore, rather than simply
concentrating on capital wealth, development
began being envisioned in terms of providing

choice and freedom, with “people” representing
“the real wealth of a nation” [6].

The sustainable challenges to - and
opportunities in - development were further
defined during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro, together 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. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

development (prosperity) with social (people),
environmental (planet) and governance
(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 international levels. Additionally,
the Johannesburg Summit most certainly
contributed to the integration of governance
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
Rio+20, as well as the merging of the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with
the MDGs in the Post-2015 development
agenda, reaffirmed the need for a sustainable,
human centered development approach. In spite
of the many shortcomings and setbacks, the
global
understanding
and
international
commitment to a better world 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 the
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

35

started with first-generation concepts of civil
and political rights (e.g., right to life and
political participation), morphed into a secondgeneration 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 the 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 the 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 the current
concept of “sustainable human security”.


36

N.K. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, 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 threats 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 families
through adequately remunerative work and
“decent work” [11]. A public policy system
designed around the notion of economic
security would also provide a publicly financed
safety net as a last resort for unemployment and
other situations in which basic income from
remunerative work is insufficient. Food security
is another central dimension of human security.
It implies that all people at all times have both
physical and economic access to basic food.
According to the United Nations, food
insecurity is not caused by food availability in
itself, but by other 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 lifestyles.
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
rule of law and the body of international 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. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

37

4. Freedom from Vulnerability (Human
Sustainability):
Human security is about
human sustainability. The environmental
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.

An individual’s human rights and
development revolve around the possession of
these four fundamental freedoms.
The
sustainable
human
security

movement
incorporates the notion that every human being
has the right to live in a secure environment,

live with access to all necessary resources, and
live with pride and dignity. The concept of
“sustainability” in regards to human security
altogether focuses on the long-term solutions
for the overarching aspects of human security,
including the institutional, economic, social,


38

N.K. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

and environmental aspects.
Since human
development is one of the most important issues
in the world today, it is essential to have
frameworks such as sustainable human security
to create a foundation in which the 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 plaguing
many national governments today. Corruption,

as further discussed below, systematically
undermines the positive work being done
through a sustainable human security
framework [14]. In order for these essential
human freedoms to become reality, anticorruption 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 the most destabilizing acts of
corruption today. It is with this mindset we
further inspect the characteristics of corruption.
Sustainable Capacity
Human Security.

Development

for

The notion and frameworks of sustainable
human security are helpful todiscern
international 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 fulfillment 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
social infrastructures – has become the priority
of intergovernmental organizations and United
Nations specialized agencies like the UNDP,
OHCHR, UNHRC, UNEP, UNHCR among
others. Building capacity has become an
essential strategy for achieving effective,
sustainable
and
human
international
development. Numerous institutions and
organizations engaged in development focus on
capacity building in their missions, operations
and objectives. But what is capacity building?
In general there are three levels of capacity
building:
personal,
organizational
and
institutional. Effective strategies and methods
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 skills
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
replicat esustainable outcomes.
3) The institutional / systemic level: with a
special assistance at providing the necessary
legal frameworks for the promotion of human
rights, labor rights, environmental rights and
anti-corruption.
The institutional framework has always
been recognized as being central for achieving a
sustainable future. Yet, many still think that a
fragmented and non-institutionalized approach
would generate an economically viable, socially


N.K. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

inclusive and environmental bearable future.
Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the Agenda
21 documents have played a 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 future we want. It is manifested in
the governance, rule of law, international
engagement capacity. It emphasizes the
importance of the normative and rule-making
aspects of development. Twenty years later, the
concept of three mutually 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 international 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
through human rights. Hence it enhances the
institutional / systemic capacity, responsibility
and sustainability of a right-based approach to
development. Therefore, the 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 the

39

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 the 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
sustainability.
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


40

N.K. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

and a diverse set of actors and institutions. It
would also require the active contribution of
scholars from multidisciplinary perspectives
that 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, the shared human
threats and international responsibility to
adequately respond to today’s cross-border
challenges, requires new integrated paradigms.
As “sustainability” is becoming central for
international 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 political frameworks) and “human security”
(as the integration of freedom from fear, want
and life 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, corruption,
human
trafficking,
climate
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 require
a “human rights” based approach that would
consider empowerment of people (in their

rights) and the capacity development of
institutions (in their responsibilities) for our
common humanity and our common future.
Although these considerations are theoretical
and systemic in nature, their importance is not

to be undermined as many of today’s practical
solutions and policy priorities still lack such an
integrated and multi-framework approach. This
is a contribution that only highlights some of
the main notions to be considered, but that can
also be easily translated into concrete and
detailed blueprints for applying the notion of
“sustainable human security” into specific areas
of intervention for institutional social
responsibility,
governance
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 learn 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
Shallcross, T., & Robinson, J. (2006). Global
citizenship and environmental justice. Amsterdam:
Rodopi. Another good publication is Cabrera, L.
(2010). The practice of global citizenship.

Cambridge: 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
/>[5] Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development: Our Common Future. Available
at />

N.K. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

[6] Access the full text and summaries of the UNDP’s
Human Development Reports (HDR) at
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
/>[8] Canada has been a critical player in the 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

/>[9] Bogardi, Janos, and Hans Günter Brauch. "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 governance (BadenBaden: 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. Rethinking human
security. John Wiley & Sons, 2009. See also the
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; Tadjbakhsh,
Shahrbanou, and Anuradha Chenoy. Human
security: Concepts and implications. Routledge,
2007. You may also find additional resources and
information on human security in the WEInstitute
human
security
online
library
at
security.html.
[11] The International Labour Organization (ILO) has

embraced the notion of ‘decent work.’ “Decent
work sums up the aspirations of people in their
working lives. It involves opportunities for work
that is productive and delivers a fair income,

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

41

security in the workplace and social protection for
families,
better
prospects
for
personal
development and social integration, freedom for
people to express their concerns, organize and
participate in the decisions that affect their lives
and equality of opportunity and treatment for all
women

and
men.”
Read
more
at
www.ilo.org/global/topics/decent-work
Tavanti, Marco. “From Famine to Food Security:
Understandings human and food security
implications for Somalia and the Horn of Africa
(HOA).” Somalia Strategy Review, Vol. 1 (June)
2012: pp. 1-8.
To further explore the human security dimensions
of environmental challenges see the works of the
International Human Dimensions Programme
(IHDP) at and the
United Nations University’s Institute for
Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) at
/>Kumar, R. 2005. Corruption, human rights, and
development: Sovereignty and state capacity to
promote good governance. American Society of
International Law, Vol. 99; p. 416-419.
Read more about ‘sustainable capacity’ from the
Sustainable Capacity International Institute (SCII)
at Also
find more resources on human security and
capacity from the World Engagement Institute
website and the International Journal of
Sustainable Human Security (IJSHS) at
/>Dr. Marco Tavanti and Dr. Sfeir Younis have
argued for the need of an integrated approach to

sustainable capacity development - one that is
based on human rights and institutional
responsibilities. Read more from Tavanti, Marco&
Sfeir-Younis, Alfredo. “Human Rights Based
Sustainable Development: Essential Frameworks for
an Integrated Approach.”The International Journal of
Sustainability Policy and Practices,Vol. 8, 2013,
Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 21-35.
UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of
the
Present
Generations.
Available
at
/>tions.pdf.


42

N.K. Hải, M. Tavanti / VNU Journal of Science: Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2014) 30-42

An Ninh Con Người Bền Vững: Cách tiếp cận hợp nhất
cho trách nhiệm thể chế xã hội và sự phát triển năng lực
quản trị nhằm tăng cường bảo vệ con người, phát triển
bền vững và phát huy đa thành phần
Nguyễn Khắc Hải, Marco Tavanti
Khoa Luật, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, 144 Xuân Thủy, Cầu giấy, Hà Nội
Trường Đại học San Francisco, Khoa Quản lý, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco

Tóm tắt: An ninh con người bền vững hợp nhất khái niệm an ninh quốc gia với sự phát triển con

người, quyền và nhân phẩm con người, sự thay đổi hệ thống. Nó cung cấp khn khổ quan hệ quốc tế
và những chính sách hợp tác toàn cầu cho những xã hội chuyển đổi. Khái niệm “an ninh con người” ở
đây được phân tích theo q trình phát triển thuật ngữ có tính lịch sử của Liên Hiệp Quốc và ở cấp độ
quốc tế. Nó cũng được mở rộng và được làm rõ để hiểu hơn động lực hiện tại trong mối quan hệ với
những thách thức (và những cơ hội của sự bền vững) và trong bối cảnh phát triển năng lực thể chế
tương thích với các thành phần xã hội cơng cộng, tư nhân, dân sự có liên quan đến những thách thức
của quốc gia và quốc tế về bảo vệ và thúc đẩy nhân phẩm của con người thông qua các quyền con
người gắn với trách nhiệm của tổ chức. Nghiên cứu cũng xây dựng khái niệm theo sự phát triển lịch sử
của nó từ an ninh quốc gia và hợp nhất các quyền con người với sự phát triển bền vững. Nghiên cứu
này sẽ góp phần xây dựng nền tảng lý luận để xem xét sự phù hợp và bất cập của khái niệm an ninh
con người bền vững trong bối cảnh về khả năng kinh tế-xã hội và chính trị-pháp lý của từng quốc gia.
Từ khóa: An ninh con người, sự phát triển, tính bền vững.