Report 102

Assessing Human Insecurity Worldwide
The Way to A Human (In)Security Index
Sascha Werthes/Corinne Heaven/Sven Vollnhals
INEF-Report 102/2011
Institute for Development and Peace
NOTEONTHEAUTHORS:
Sascha Werthes (Dipl.Soz.Wiss.), lecturer at the University of DuisburgEssen. Associate FellowattheInstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF)attheUniversityofDuisburgEssen. CoordinatoroftheWorkingGrouponHumanSecurity(AGHumanSecurity).Ph.D.candidate attheCenterforConflictStudies(CCS)atthePhilippsUniversityMarburg. EMail:swerthes@unidue.de Corinne Heaven (Dipl.Pol.), Ph.D. Student at the University of Reading. Associate Fellow at theInstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF)attheUniversityofDuisburgEssen. EMail:cheaven@gmx.de Sven Vollnhals (Dipl.Soz.Wiss. Cand.), studies political science and economics at the UniversityofDuisburgEssen.MemberoftheWorkingGrouponHumanSecurity(AGHuman Security). EMail:sven.vollnhals@gmx.de
BIBLIOGRAPHICALNOTE:
Sascha Werthes/Corinne Heaven/Sven Vollnhals: Assessing Human Insecurity Worldwide: The Way to A Human (In)Security Index. Institute for Development and Peace, University of DuisburgEssen(INEFReport102/2011).
Imprint
Editor:
InstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF) UniversityofDuisburgEssen Logodesign:CarolaVogel Layoutdesign:JeanetteSchade,SaschaWerthes Coverphoto:JochenHippler
InstitutfrEntwicklungundFrieden
Lotharstr.53 Phone+49(203)3794420 D47057Duisburg Fax+49(203)3794425
EMail:inefsek@inef.unidue.de Homepage:http://inef.unidue.de
ISSN09414967
SaschaWerthes/CorinneHeaven/SvenVollnhals

AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
TheWaytoaHuman(In)SecurityIndex
INEFReport102/2011
UniversityofDuisburgEssen UniversittDuisburgEssen InstituteforDevelopmentandPeace InstitutfrEntwicklungundFrieden(INEF)
ABSTRACT
SaschaWerthes/CorinneHeaven/SvenVollnhals:AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide: TheWaytoAHuman(In)SecurityIndex The idea of human security has been presented and discussed in international academic and political fora for more than a decade. Yet, despite its popularity, the analytical usefulness as wellasthepoliticalappropriatenessoftheconceptisfrequentlycriticized.Inarguingforand presentingaHuman(In)SecurityIndexweaddressbothaspects. In the first part, we discuss the idea of human security and introduce the reader to the main critiqueregardingtheconceptualusefulnessoftheidea.Secondly,wereflectonthecontested developmentsecuritynexuswhenpresentingourconceptualframework.Additionally,weput forward a thresholdbased conceptualization of human security based on the ideas originally presented by Taylor Owen together with Mary Martin. To substantiate the thresholdbased conceptualizationwepresentamultidimensionalHuman(In)SecurityIndex,allowingtoassess respectivelevelsofhuman(in)security.Byoperationalizingthedimensionsofhumansecurity andpresentingavailabledatafor2008,oneoftheremainingconceptualchallengesisaddressed. WedemonstratehowaHuman(In)SecurityIndexcanbeusedinthepoliticalrealmandbring to the fore the potential core threats tohumansecurity. This additionally specifies the idea of human security and furthers a differentiation between human security and other related conceptssuchashumandevelopmentandhumanrights. Insum,wearguethathumansecurityasapoliticalidearemainshighlyrelevant.Asapolitical leitmotif, human security is significantly and constructively used and applied in political processesdespiteorbecauseofitsanalyticalambiguity.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Trotz der vielfltigen Aufmerksamkeit die das Konzept der menschlichen Sicherheit erfahren hat,sobleibtesdochinvielerleiHinsichtumstrittenundkritisiert.EinerzentralenKritik,dass das Konzept empirischanalytisch problematisch und menschliche Unsicherheit letztlich nicht erfassbar sei, widmet sich dieser INEFReport. In einer Weiterentlicklung von Ideen von Taylor Owen und Taylor Owen zusammen mit Mary Martin entwickeln die Autoren einen innovativen Ansatz mit dem sich menschliche Sicherheit zumindest auf lnderspezifisch in verschiedenen Dimensionen erfassen lsst und leisten hierdurch einen wichtigen Beitrag wie das Konzept menschlicher Sicherheit auch fr die Zukunft politisch nutzbar als auch akademischfruchtbargenutztwerdenkann.
Content
1. 2. HumanSecurity:TheOriginalApproach,ConceptualChallenges, andPoliticalConsequences........................................................................................................6 . 2.1 2.2 2.3 3. AddressingtheChallenge:AHuman(In)SecurityIndex....................................................16 3.1 3.2 3.3 PreliminaryRemarksontheHuman(In)SecurityDimensions.................................19 Methodology:ComputationoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndex..................................25 Findings.............................................................................................................................28 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.3.7 3.4 4. 5. 6. 7. Annex2:CountriesRanked.......................................................................................................57 Annex1:CountriesinAlphabeticalOrderandScoreforallDimensions........................51 References.....................................................................................................................................45 Rsum...........................................................................................................................................42 HumanEconomic(In)Security.......................................................................28 HumanFood(In)Security...............................................................................29 HumanHealth(In)Security............................................................................31 HumanEnvironmental(In)Security..............................................................34 HumanPersonalandCommunity(In)Security...........................................34 HumanPolitical(In)security...........................................................................35 HumanInsecurity............................................................................................38 ConceptualChallenges......................................................................................................8 DifferentSchoolsofHumanSecurityandTheirPoliticalImpact................................9 FindingAnswers:AddressingtheDevelopmentSecurityNexus.............................12 Introduction....................................................................................................................................5
ADescriptiveAnalysisoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndexwith otherIndices......................................................................................................................41
1.
Introduction1
The notion of human security has strongly influenced the academic and politicaldebatealike.Asmuchastheusefulnessoftheideahasbeencontested, asmuchithasbeenlobbiedfor.Notwithstandingtheideaspoliticalimpactthe critique raised is substantial: it is said to be too vague, too ambiguous, too conceptuallyweaktonameonlyafewpointswhichhavebeenargued. Thefollowingpapertakestheseanalyticalchallengesasastartingpointand responds to one of the major conceptual questions by presenting a Human (In)Security Index. The paper is organized in three parts: Chapter 2 briefly sketchesouttheoriginalapproachtohumansecuritybytheUNDPandoffersa briefoverviewonthecurrentdebateaswellasthesubsequentcriticismraised. Despitethecriticism,thenotionofhumansecurityhasgainedpoliticalimpact. Humansecurityhasgatheredfriendsandsomecountrieseventurnedtheidea into a guiding principle for their foreign policy agendas. Substantial policy results have been reached. In chapter 3 we suggest a way how to address the problematic close linkages to related concepts such as human development and human rights. We propose a conceptual and policy framework based on the ideas developed by Pauline Kerr. This helps to substantiate the development of actual thresholds which are also elaborated in chapter 3. Furthermore,inchapter4weexplicitlyaddressoneoftheremainingchallenges up to today. As is well known, it has widely been argued that the context specificanddynamicnatureoftheideaofhumansecuritydoesnotallowfora measurement of the potential insecurity of human beings. This makes impossibleaprioritizationofpoliciesoreventoevaluatethesuccessofcertain policy measures. Against this background, we present an alternative way of operationalizingtheideaofhumansecurity.AHuman(In)SecurityIndexhelps to inform the political realm in locating the human insecurity hot spots, thus enabling policy makers to set priorities and also to evaluate their policy initiatives. Some of our findings of our assessment of human (in)security worldwidearepresentedinchapter4andarebrieflyillustrated. Importantly, one has to emphasize that a Human (In)Security Index is certainly no meaningful substitute for an indepth analysis of countryspecific situations or the situation of the population. However, a Human (In)Security Indexisvaluableandhelpfulforatleastfivereasons: a) It helps to present global trends in the respective human security dimensions. Although there is a number of global indices (Bertelsmann Transformation Index; Human Development Index; Global Peace Index; FailedStateIndex,tonameonlyafew),noneofthem,atleastuptonow, adequatelyrepresentsthehumansecuritysituationastheyareconstructed
Among many others we are grateful to Stephane Roussel, Christian Bger, Daniel Lambach, CorneliaUlbertandFelixBethkefortheirhelpfulcommentsandcriticalreviewofthefirstdraft. Moreover,wewouldliketothanktheWorkingGrouponHumanSecurityanditsmembersfor theircontinuousandenthusiasticsupport.
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
fordifferentpurposes.Therehavebeenotherattemptstoassessthehuman security situation worldwide (e.g. the Human Security Index)2, but they address the issue from a different analytical perspective and mainly concentrateonsubstantiatinghumansecurityviaanequitabilityenhanced HumanDevelopmentIndex. b) By describing the human insecurity situation in the respective countries from a broad general dimensional perspective, it is illustrated in which human(in)securitydimensionscountriesperformquitewellandinwhich not. Thereby, the possibility to set priority agendas for policy action is offered. The Human (In)Security Index helps to substantiate aggregated thresholds of human insecurity in the respective human insecurity dimension.
c)
d) Inthelongrun,theHuman(In)SecurityIndexshouldalsohelptoassessin whichdimensionrespectivecountrieshavemadeprogress,thatis,perform better than before. The index might measure the success/efficacy or effectivenessofcertainpolicyinitiatives. e) Finally,onecanarguethatnocountrywantstobeseenasabadperformer when it comes to human security. The Human (In)Security Index might helpinfosteringthepoliticalwillintherespectivecountrybutalsointhe international community to help the respective country to address challengesintherespectivehumaninsecuritydimensions.
Insum,wearguethataHuman(In)SecurityIndexcanperformasthebasisfor proposinggeneralgoalsforpolicyprograms.Theindexshouldberegardedasa reference base and starting point when it comes to the first phase of operationalizing the human security concept in the way the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security (2009) has proposed. Additionally, on a more generalandbroadlyaggregatedlevelitoffersthepossibilitytosubstantiatethe ideaofhumansecurityanditsrespectivedimensionsbydefiningthresholdsof levelshuman(in)security.
2.
HumanSecurity:TheOriginalApproach, ConceptualChallenges,andPolitical Consequences
Contemporary thinking about human security has been strongly informed by theHumanDevelopmentReportof1994,arguingtotaketheprotectionofthe individual as the starting point for political thinking and practice (see MacFarlane/Kong2006;alsoDebiel/Franke2008).TheUNDPReportintroduced seven socalled dimensions of human security: economic, food, health,
2
Seehttp://www.humansecurityindex.org/?cat=3,10/09/2010.SeealsoHasting2009.
environmental,personal,communityandpoliticalsecurity.Withthenotionsof globalization and interdependence becoming more and more clarified throughout the 1990s, the interpretation practice of the UN Security Council alsoincreasinglychangedwithregardtotheevaluationofthreatsorbreachesto andofinternationalpeace/security(seedeWet2004:Chap.4).Insum,complex political challenges of development and security, exemplified by such illustrative cases as Somalia or East Timor, were more and more perceived as interrelated. The idea of human security is precisely based on this perception of interrelatedness: In the final analysis, human security is a child who did not die,adiseasethatdidnotspread,ajobthatwasnotcut,anethnictensionthat didnotexplodeinviolence,adissidentwhowasnotsilenced.HumanSecurity is not a concern with weapons it is a concern with human life and dignity (UNDP1994:22).Importantly,thenotionalsoimpliesanewperspective:whilst traditional thinking about security was first and foremost concerned with the protection of the nation state, the concept of human security is laid out more broadly and argues that the reference object should be the individual (UNDP 1994:2223).3 This description already illustrates how much the original idea of human securityanditsveryoftencriticizedambiguousconceptualizationisrelatedto thediscoursesrevolvingaroundthesocalledsecuritydevelopmentnexus(see e.g. Stern/jendal 2010; Duffield 2010; Hettne 2010; Chandler 2008a, 2008b, 2007; Anand/Gasper 2007; Martin/Owen 2010). Daryl Copeland (2009: 91), for example, argues that development must be both made a top priority and understoodinrelationtosecurity.Hearguesthatunderdevelopmentisoneof the primary causes of insecurity and moreover, that addressing insecurity effectively and eschewing the militarization of international policy in favor of equitable, sustainable, humancentered development will require a largescale revisionofprioritiesandasignificantreallocationofresources(Copeland2009: 93). However, as critical scholars have convincingly argued, notions of both securityanddevelopmentcanalsobeseenasdiscursiveconstructionsthat produce the reality they seem to reflect, and thus serve certain purposes and interests (Stern/ jendal 2010: 7). Stern and jendal (2010: 7) emphasize in reference to Chandler (2007): Surely, the power of definition over developmentandsecurityalsoimpliespowertodefinenotonlytherelevant field of interest, but also the material content of practices, the distribution of resources,andsubsequentpolicyresponses.
Itisimportanttonotethathumansecurityshouldnotbeequatedwithhumandevelopment.In linewiththeUNDPReport,wearguethathumandevelopmentremainsabroaderconceptthat is defined as a process of widening the range of peoples choices. Human security, on the contrary,meansthatpeopleareabletosafelyandfreelyexercisethesechoices(UNDP1994:23).
In contrast to these more skeptical remarks, Martin and Owen (2010), in drawing lessons from the UN and EU experience, see a chance of a second generation of human security emerging if the problem of weak conceptualization, currently especially present in the UNs traditional understanding of human security, is addressed. That said, the recently published Human Security Report The Shrinking Costs of War nevertheless underlinesthattheideaisstillaspressingandrelevanttoday.Interestingly,the Reportanalyses three interrelated developments that have beendriving down conflictdeathsformorethanadecade(thatis:thechangingnatureofwarfare, globalhealthpolicyreducingdeathsinpeacetimeandincreasedhumanitarian assistance) (see Human Security Report 2009: 7). This surely illustrates the complexinterrelatednessofvariousformsofthreatstohumanbeings. In sum, human security as such has become an integral part of any (academic) security discourse and in the field of security studies or global politics(seee.g.Collins2007;Baylis/Smith/Owens2008;Booth2005;Ferdowsi 2009). Moreover, when it comes to policy utility and policy relevance, some might argue that the first generation of human security (represented by the UN and Canada) appears to be in retreat, but one can also argue that a secondgenerationisemerging(Martin/Owen2010:212).However,thesuccess of any human security concept depends on addressing the conceptual challenges.Otherwiseitmight,infact,stillserveasapoliticalleitmotif,butwill betrappedinthesaydogapastheambiguityoftheconceptwillproduceonly poorpossibilitiestoinstitutionalizetheideaasarealpolicyparadigm.
2.1
ConceptualChallenges
Although the UNDP Report was widely acknowledged for bringing into perspective an innovative thinking on security, its wideranging implications and its conceptual base was criticized especially in academic fora. In the following, we shall point to the central aspects discussed in the more recent debates.4BydrawingonTadjabkhsh/Chenoy(2007:57ff.)webrieflysummarize thecoreaspects. Firstly, the idea of humansecurity is criticized for its conceptualweakness orthelackofaclearbroadlyaccepteddefinition.Theseaspectsmightevenhave amountedtosymptomsoffailureasonecanobserveagradualimplosionofthe HumanSecurityNetworkandCanadasretreatfromtheforeignpolicyagenda itpioneered(seeMartin/Owen2010:211f.;forcontrastingpositionseeWerthes/ Bosold2006;Bger2008).Infact,onecanstatethattheambiguityoftheoriginal concept can be linked to problems of human security to establish itself as a
4
For an overview on the critique and countercritique please refer to the journal Security Dialogue, which brought together 21 wellknown academics who expressed their opinions on the conceptual challenges (e.g. Axworthy 2004; Hampson 2004; Hubert 2004; Uvin 2004; Newman 2004; Alkire 2004; Liotta 2004; Evans 2004; Suhrke 2004; Mack 2004; Krause 2004; MacFarlane 2004; Buzan 2004; Paris 2004; Owen 2004) or to the elaborate illustration of the debate(s)byTadjbakhshandChenoy(2007:39ff).
general principle of public policy and to poor institutionalization of human securityasabroadlyacceptedpolicyparadigm. Secondly, various authors have argued that the idea of human security mightfallvictimtotheproblemofoversecuritization(seee.g.Paris2004,2001). As Paris (2004: 371) pointed out: Human security seems to encompass everything from substance abuse to genocide. This definitional expansiveness servesthepoliticalpurposeofenticingthebroadestpossiblecoalitionofactors and intereststo unite under the humansecurity banner, but it simultaneously complicates matters for academic researchers, particularly those who are interestedincausalhypotheses. Thirdly, the political implications of a human security agenda have also been criticized on the grounds that they challenge the traditional role of the sovereignstateasthesoleproviderofsecurityaswellastheverysovereigntyof thestateintheinternationalcontext(Tadjabkhsh/Chenoy2007:63). Lastly, the measurement of human security has been and still isa strongly debated aspect. As is wellknown, critiques argue that the complexity and subjectivity of the idea of human security makes it difficult to actually operationalizeit. In sum, much criticism centers on the ambiguity or the lack of conceptual clearnessoftheconcept.Thechallengeofanagreedonhopefullyclearenough definitionhasresultedinheatedacademicdebates,pittingthosewhopropose narrowing the concept against those who want to preserve its holism and inclusiveness(Paris2004:371).Havingsaidthis,itiseasytounderstandwhy scholars and policy makers have viewed human security either as (a) an attractive idea which lacks analytical rigor; or (b) have tried to limit it to a narrowlyconceiveddefinition;or(c)havearguedthatitisanessentialtoolfor understanding challenges to peoples wellbeing and dignity (Tadjbakhsh/ Chenoy 2007: 40). Moreover, it is easyto comprehend why among academics, thedebateis,first,betweentheproponentsanddetractorsofhumansecurity, andsecond,betweenanarrowasopposedtoabroadconceptualtheorizationof humansecurity(Tadjbakhsh/Chenoy2007:40).
2.2
DifferentSchoolsofHumanSecurityandTheirPolitical Impact
Despitetheanalyticalcritique,theideaofhumansecuritygainedacceptanceby politiciansandcivilsocietyalikeandunfoldeditsimpactinthepoliticalrealm. Some authors such as Bger (2008) or Werthes and Bosold (2006) even argue thatthelackofdefinitionalclarityconstitutesoneofthefactorshelpingtheidea to evolve as a boundary object or political leitmotif and thereby to gain political impact. Startinginthesecondhalfofthe1990s,theideaofhumansecuritybeganto gainpoliticalimpact.Amongthefirstcountriestoofficiallyadopttheapproach wereCanadaandJapan(inmoredetailseeBosold/Werthes2005;Atanassova
10
Cornelis2006;MacRae/Hubert2001;fortheUNseeMacFarlane/Khong2006).5 Especially under the auspices of the then Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy Canada initiated and/ or supported various efforts guided by the ideaofhumansecurity.TheOttawaProcesstobanantipersonallandminesand theOptionalProtocolontheInvolvementofChildreninArmedConflictareprobably the most wellknown success stories. Additionally, in March 1999, the Government of Japan and the United Nations Secretariat launched the United NationsTrustFundforHumanSecurity(UNTFHS).TheUNTFHS,opentoUN agencies,iscurrentlymanagedbytheHumanSecurityUnit(HSU).Besidethe management of the UNTFHS the overall objective of the HSU, which was established in May 2004 at the United Nations Secretariat in the Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), is to place human security in the mainstream of UN activities by playing a pivotal role in translating the concept of human security into concrete activities and highlighting the added value of the human security approach (see http://ochaonline.un.org/ humansecurity).Clearlyrelatedtoabroadperspectiveonhumansecurity,the majority of funding was directed towards developmental concerns including key thematic areas such as health, education, agriculture and small scale infrastructuredevelopment.6 Commonlyatleasttwounderstandingsaredistinguishedincurrentpolitical andacademicdiscourseswhichshareasubstantialcore(seealsoFigure1).The narrow school is associated with Canada and to a certain degree with the Human Security Network (sees e.g. Fuentes Julio/Brauch 2009). Basically, this narrowschoolarguesthatthethreatofpoliticalviolencetopeople,bythestate oranyotherorganizedpoliticalentity,istheappropriatefocusfortheconcept ofhumansecurity(inmoredetailseeKerr2007;seealsoBosold/Werthes2005). This perspective is mainly linked to the idea of freedom from fear. The broad schoolarguesthathumansecuritymeansmorethanaconcernwiththethreat of violence. Human security is not only freedom from fear but also freedom from want. This broad perspective is generally associated with Japan, the Commission on Human Security (CHS 2003) and the United Nations Trust FundforHumanSecurity. More recently, it can be argued that a third perspective or a second generation of human security (Martin/Owen 2010), is evolving which encompassesthenarrowandthebroadschoolthatonemightcalltheEuropean school.Ontheonehand,thisperspectiveismorestronglyrelatedtothethird dimension of liberty, rights and rule of law while it is not strictly limited or primarilyfocussedonthisdimensionontheother.TheBarcelonaReportofthe StudyGrouponEuropesSecurityCapabilities(2004),theMadridReportofthe HumanSecurityStudyGroup(2007),andCounciloftheEuropeanUnion(2003,
For a compendium of human securityrelated initiatives and activities by members of the FriendsofHumanSecurityandUnitedNationsagencies,fundsandprogramsseeUNGA2008. >>http://ochaonline.un.org/TrustFund/TheUnitedNationsTrustFundforHumanSecurity/ tabid/2108/language/enUS/Default.aspx<<,20/08/2009
2008) advance this perspective (also see Glasius/Kaldor 2005; 2007; Martin/Owen2010;Sira/Grns2010).
Figure1:HumanSecurityastheNexusbetweenSafety,Rights,andEquity
11
(Original:ShahrbanouTadjbakhsh/AnuradhaM.Chenoy2007:52)
Especially,the2008reportisofinterestasitmakesmoreexplicitreferencesto human security. Moreover, the report draws extensively, and in more detail thaninanypreviousofficialdocumentsoftheCounciloftheEuropeanUnion, onhumansecurityideas.Furthermore,asMartinandOwen(2010)observethe European Parliament and especially the European Commission have either supported the shift to human security or explicitly promote human security. Noteworthy, the Commissions definition of human security located it differently from that of the UN, combining physical protection and material security, and sitting it firmly within a crisis management as well as a conflict resolutionpolicyframe(Martin/Owen2010:219).AsMartinandOwen(2010: 219) further substantiate: While the Commission committed itself to tackling the root causes of conflict and vulnerability, the emphasis was less on underdevelopment per se and more on the integration of a development perspectiveintotheEUsforeignpolicytoolkit.Theideaofhumansecuritynot only served as a tool to mobilize the EUs foreign policy to tackle underdevelopment and insecurity, but also as a means by which to enforce cooperationbetweenrivalEUpolicystreams.
2.3
FindingAnswers:AddressingtheDevelopmentSecurity Nexus
12
While agreeing that human development is a much broader concept than human security and that not all human rights issues are linked to security concerns as such, it is still apparent that human security proponents strongly emphasize a developmentsecuritynexus and a human rightssecuritynexus. Aspointedoutbefore,humansecuritycommonlyservesaspoliticalobjective (Martin/Owen 2010), political leitmotif (Werthes/Bosold 2006), or boundary object (Bger 2008). In essence, what is important to note is that it could be used,first,tocombineshortandlongtermpolicyresponses;second,toblur distinctions between foreign and security policy, and between development, humanitarian and crisis management agendas; and third, to integrate commitments to agendas such as gender equality and human rights (Martin/Owen2010:219).However,despitebeingusefulinthissense,thereare twopossibilitiesinredressingtheconceptualambiguityforpracticalpurposes: first, the above mentioned nexi have to be conceptualized more clearly regarding their causal links and a second step forward is to propose and advance a thresholdbased conceptualization of human security (Owen 2004; Martin/ Owen 2010; Werthes 2008). That is, rather than securitizing an ever growinglistofthreatsassuch,allofthesemustprincipallybeconsideredatall timesassecurityissues.Butanyissueinanylocationhastopassathresholdso thatitcanbecomeasecuritythreat.Onlythosethatbecomesevereenoughto warrantthesecuritylabelwouldbetreatedassuch(Martin/Owen2010:221). Thisconceptualizationlimitstheinclusionofthreatsbytheirseverityrather than their cause. Finally, to enhance the political impact of a thresholdbased conceptualization of human security, substantiation of specific thresholds is necessary. One way to do this is the creation of a Human (In)Security Index reflecting these underlying conceptual ideas in relation to human security dimensions. Only the worst threat situations in any country, whatever their cause, are prioritized with the label of human (in)security. All others remain within their constituent disciplines and institutional structures, such as development,environmentalregulation,orthelegalprotectionofhumanrights (seealsoMartin/Owen2010:221). Today,manyarguethatthemodernstateoramodernunderstandingof sovereignty involves responsibilities and fiduciary duties (see also: Jones/ Pacual/Stedman 2009; ICISS 2001; Bellamy 2009; Evans 2008). These responsibilities and fiduciary duties literally encompass the whole agenda of the human rights, human security, and human development discourse. But while welfare and issues of sustainability and a huge part of internationally codified human rights still only belong to the sphere of fiduciary duties, fundamental human rights and basic needs are more and more consensually regardedasresponsibilitiesofthestateor,toputitdifferently,theaspectsthat are discussed with reference to the term human security. Though the specific set of the boundaries is contested and in flux, one can argue that the internationalsocietyacceptsthisareaofhumanvulnerabilityasacommonly sharedresponsibilityandismoreandmorewillingtofindwaystotakeupthis (shared) responsibility. Based on a principle of subsidiarity a responsibility to
act is postulated. Current state practice shows that this is a sphere where international interference seems to become more and more legitimate, notwithstanding that international interference has to be appropriate and wellsuitedtobeacceptedaslegitimate.Thismightexplainwhyamajorityof debates on political strategies and means circulate on ways to establish benchmarks and thresholds or clear criteria when and how to interfere or intervene in situations where the respective state is not able or willing to act appropriately. The most prominent example of this kind is the debate on the responsibilitytoprotect(R2P)whichisconcernedwithmilitaryinterventionin casesofmassatrocities. Thesenexuschallengescanbedescribedwhenworkingonideasoriginally presentedbyPaulineKerr.Thoughmorelimitedandratherrelatedonlytothe developmentsecuritynexus,theseideascanalsobeusedtoexplainthehuman rightssecuritynexus.7Firstly,onecanstatethatproponentsofhumansecurity grantthemselvestheanalyticalfreedomtostudyalmostanysecurityissueas an potential threat that is as a dependent or independent variable because insecurity can be both a cause and a consequence of violence (Tadjbakhsh/ Chenoy2007:59).Onewaytosubsequentlydevelopaconceptualframeworkis to focus on the nexus between the narrow schools focus on violence and the broadschoolsfocusonhumandevelopment(Kerr2007:95ff).Onemayargue by focusing on political violence that human insecurity is the dependent variable. Moreover, it becomes apparent that the many causes of human insecurityincludeproblemsofunderdevelopmentandthatthesecantherefore be perceived as the independent variables. This leads us to a way of conceptualizing both the developmentsecuritynexus and the human rights securitynexus. Our understanding of how to conceptualize four kinds of human (in)securitysituations(levels)areillustratedinfigure2.Thresholdsofthiskind are necessary (seeabove)as they helpto point outwhen actionis needed, i.e. whenthereisaresponsibilityto(re)act.Atthelevelofhumansecuritythereare no systematic and sustainable threats to life/survival, though there might be security issues as such (see above). The level of relative human security is characterized by a situation where some factors and contexts threaten life/ survival, but individuals and groups generally have a way to cope with these threatsorhavethenecessaryhelpattheirdisposal.Inotherwords,peopleare sensitive to (specific) threats but not vulnerable8 as they have options to cope with these kinds of threats, even though these options may produce (significant)costseithertotheindividualortothecommunity/stateassuch.

13
Additional insights, though based on a different line of argument and perspective, can be gainedbyreadingRoberts(2008). TheideaofsensitivityandvulnerabilityislooselybasedonthethinkingofKeohaneandNye (1977).
Figure2:LevelsofHuman(In)Security
War,Chaos,Complex humanitarianemergencies
Thresholdofa humanitarian crisis
14
Levelof Human (In)Security
Thresholdof vulnerability
Thresholdof sensitivity
Sphereof FiduciaryDuty
Sphere ofthe Sphereofthe Responsibilityto Responsibilityto Prevent React
Sphereofthe Responsibilityto Rebuild/Prevent
Sphereof FiduciaryDuty
Idealized ProgressionofHumanSecurityPolicy
SaschaWerthes2007
Level1 Level of human security: There is no systematic and sustainable threat to life/survival. Level2 Levelofrelativehumansecurity:Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survival, but individuals and groups usually have strategies, means, behavioral options, or aid/helpattheirdisposaltocopewiththesethreats. Level3 Levelofrelativehumaninsecurity:Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survival and individuals and groups have only limited or inadequate strategies, means, behavioraloptions,oraid/helpattheirdisposaltocopewiththesethreats. Level4 Level of human insecurity: Some factors and contexts threaten life/survival and individuals and groups have no adequate strategies, means, behavioral options, or aid/helpattheirdisposaltocopewiththesethreats.
At the level of relative human insecurity there are factors and contexts that threatenlife/survival,butaspeoplehave(atthatspecificmoment)onlylimited or inadequate strategies,means, behavioral options, or aidat their disposal to copewiththesethreatstheyarevulnerabletothesethreats.Finally,atthelevel ofhumaninsecurityindividualsorgroupsdonotdisposeatallofanyadequate strategies,means,behavioraloption,oraid.Thesituationofvulnerabilityisso gravethatitresemblesasituationofhumanitariancrisis. Inthefollowing,weshalllinkthelevelsofhuman(in)securitytonumbersto illustratetherelevanceandinpointoffacttopreparethegroundforanindex that identifies the actually vulnerabilities of people. This is carried out by referring to the dimensions of the UNDP Report 1994 and the main threats in eachregion.
Firstly,typesofthreatsconcerningeconomicsecurityarepersistentpoverty and unemployment. In 2007, the total number of unemployment was 180 million,for2008itisestimatedtoaccountfor188million(ILO2009:24).Even more so, the 2009 global financial crisis and the slowdown in the world economic growth including a recession for some of the major industrialized countries have severely impacted on the labor market and job opportunities. Today,morethan620millionpersonsliveinextremepovertyoflessthanUS$ 1.25adayandthenumberofworkingpoorisstillprojectedtoriseinthefuture (ILO2009:3),resultinginincreasedglobalpoverty.Themostinsecurejobsare to be found in the informal sector, a feature of a majority of developing countrieswheresomesortofsocialnetorinsuranceismissingforlargepartsof thepersonsworkingintheinformalsector(Canagaraja/Sethuraman2001). As regards potential threats that can be identified in the environmental dimension, climate change can lead to increased shortage of water and the degradation of land. This significantly can produce the effect of increasing energycostsandtheheighteneddemandfornaturalresources.Moreover,itis frequently pointed out that conflicts can lead to the deterioration of health causingmortality,morbidityormalnutrition.Muchresearchhasfocusedonthe link of poverty and conflicts and in this context, the connection of poverty, restricted access to education, health and conflict becomes evident (Pedersen 2009). One has only to think of the landbased conflicts in Somalia to become awareoftheinterlinkageshere(Dehrez2009).Thenumberofdeathscausedby natural catastrophes accounted for 235,000 in 2008, mainly effected by two major incidents, the abovementioned Cyclone Nargis and the Sichuan earthquakeinChina(AnnualDisasterStatisticalReview2008:1).Thenumbers for the 2006 and 2007 are similarly alarming despite the fact that no major events such as Nargis and the Sichuan earthquake took place: in 2006 23,000 personswerekilledbynaturaldisasterscausingmorethanUS$34.5billionin economic damages (Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2006). The year 2007 witnessed 16,847deaths; however, more than211 million otherswereaffected byoverall414naturaldisasterscausinganeconomicdamageofUS$74.9billion (AnnualDisasterStatisticalReview2007). With a view to the food dimensions, alarming numbers make clear the necessity for appropriate policy (re)actions: According to the Food and AgriculturalOrganizationoftheUnitedNations(FAO),68percentofthetotal populationinEritreawereundernourishedin2005,63percentinBurundiand 46percentinEthiopia(FAOFoodSecurityStatistics2008).Thisfigurespointto the severity of undernourishment especially for developing countries. According to the FAO, nearly one billion peoplesuffer from malnutritionand hunger today. This problem is closely linked toadditionalaspects suchas the economic and social status a person enjoys. It should also be stressed that sufferingfromhungerandbeingundernourishedleadstoanalarmingnumber ofdeaths:25,000persons(adultsandchildren)dieeverydayfromhungerand related causes (FAO 2008: SOFI Report). About 11 million children under five dieindevelopingcountrieseachyear,malnutritionandhungerrelateddiseases cause 60 percent of the deaths of children (UNICEF 2007: The State of the WorldsChildren).
15
16
Equally alarming numbers can be identified in the health dimensions of humansecurity.TheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)listsmorethanfifteen infectious diseases affecting human beings worldwide, the most important of them being malaria and tuberculosis. In 2006, there were 247 million cases of malaria,leadingtonearlyonemilliondeaths,mostlyamongchildreninAfrica. The number of persons infected with the TB virus is also disastrous: today, approximately9millionhumanbeingsareinfectedwiththeTBvirusthathas causedabout1.5milliondeathsin2006(http.www.who.org).The2008Report ontheGlobalAidsEpidemicestimatesthenumberofadultsandchildrenliving with HIV 33,000,000, the vast majority of them living in SubSaharan Africa (22,000,000)(UNAIDS2008:214).ThefurtherspreadofHIV/AIDSwillcontinue toposeaworldwidesecurityrisk. Having identified the necessity of conceptual thresholds of human (in)security the next step is to point out a way how to operationalize these thresholdsinreferencetothehuman(in)securitydimensionsidentifiedbythe original UNDPconcept. That is to assess human (in)security. As we have arguedabove,conceptualizingahuman(in)securityindexisrelevanttoassess certain security issues as actual threats (and in doing so, we argue for the conceptualization of certain thresholds). However, and equally important, the overview on actual numbers of deaths related to the different dimensions of human (in)security underscores the necessity to develop a measurement instrument.
3.
AddressingtheChallenge:AHuman (In)SecurityIndex
We shall address this challenge by presenting a Human (In)Security Index (HISI) based on the original human security dimensions presented by the UNDPidentifiedintheHumanDevelopmentReportof1994.Thecrucialtaskis tohelptodevelopbenchmarkstomonitortheimpactsofagivenpolicyandto helptoformulatecoursesandagendasofaction(seealsoUNUCRIS2009).In thismanner,notonlyoneofthefundamentalcriticismsismet,evenmoresothe practicalrelevanceofhumansecuritycanbeenhanced.Findinganswerstothe problemofhumaninsecurityrequiresaninstrumenttoassesstheactualthreats tohumanbeings.Besides,humansecurityisalsounderstoodasanattemptto shed light on the root causes of insecurity (Werthes/Debiel 2006: 10). To find appropriate policy responses, it is important to measure the actual threats related to insecurity. This also helps to identify priorities for policy agendas, since the idea of human security has been increasingly included in decision making,policydesignandprogrammaticimplementation. Previouscontributionswhichhavefocusedoncreatinganindexmeasuring human security are primarily restricted to a narrow approach to human security. To date, the debate on the possibilities of measuring human (in)security has predominantly been shaped by the miniAtlas of Human Security (formerly the Human Security Report), published by the Human Security Report Project and the World Bank. The miniAtlas predominately provides data for insecurity related to wars and armed conflicts (miniAtlas of
Human Security 2008), but does not take into account threats caused by non violent factors such as undernourishment, infectious diseases and natural disasters. Oneofthefirstattemptstooperationalizeadefinitionhowhumansecurity may be measured is the concept of generalized poverty by Gary King and ChristopherJ.L.Murray.Generalizedpovertyexistswhenadefinedthreshold foracertaindimensionisreached.Theauthorsofthisconceptargueinfavorof a universal decision for indicators of measuring human security in a quantitative manner worldwide (King/ Murray 2001: 11ff). An overall state of generalized poverty for a population in all relevant dimensions can then be identified through a quantitative approach using survival analysis methods (King/Murray 2001: 609f). Therefore the concept of generalized poverty is substantially related to an economic dimension of security. In contrast, our attemptwillalsotakeintoaccountotherdimensions(whicharenotcloselyand solelylinkedtoeconomicwellbeinglike,forexample,politicalsecurity). Perhaps the most forward pushing attempt to create an Index of Human SecuritysofarhasbeenmadebyDavidA.Hastings.Thisindexmainlyaimsat extending the Human Development Index with indicators that attempt to characterizeinclusiveincome,knowledge,andhealthcareasactuallydelivered to people (Hastings 2009: 10). This Enhanced Human Development Index is developedtocreateaprototypeHumanSecurityIndex(Hastings2009:11ff) based on ideas of the UNDP 1994 human security definition. The Enhanced HDIshallthenprogressivelybeadvancedtoaHumanSecurityIndex. We agree with Hastings when drawing attention to the fact that initial ingredientsofaHumanSecurityIndexnowexistwhicharerelatedtothefact thatinternationallycomparabledatasetsforavastfieldoftopicsinthefieldof economic and development are available today and the possibility for the constructionofindicesforavastfieldhasbeenimproved(Hastings2009:18f). HastingsconstructshisSocialFabricorHumanSecurityIndex(HSI)alongthe dimensions of: protection of (and benefiting from) diversity, peace, environmental protection, freedom from corruption and information empowerment and additionally draws the attention to the imperfectness of indicators on an aggregated country level as a critical remark.9 This is also an issue we take into account when constructing our Human (In)Security Index, butwillnotdiscussindetail.IncontrasttoHastingsapproachofproducinga SocialFabricorHumanSecurityIndexweattempttostrictlyoperationalizethe core ideas of the respective UNDPs human security dimensions. There are some dimensions that are operationalized in a similar way in both indices. However, our index focuses on a worldwide relation of human (in)security. Hastings mainly draws the focus on Asia and the Pacific as a regional index (Hastings2009:8).10
9
17
Foramoredetaileddescriptionpleasesee:http://www.humansecurityindex.org/?page_id=147. AregionalindexhasbeenrecentlypublishedbytheUniversityofthePhilippinesThirdWorld StudiesCenterthatexaminesthehumansecuritysituationinthePhilippines,seeAtenziaetal. 2009.
10
Another approach has been the very fruitful (early) operationalization and computationofanIndexofHumanInsecurity(IHI)developedbytheGECHS (Global Environmental Change and Human Security) project in 2000. Human insecurityisdividedintothedimensionsofenvironment,economy,societyand institutions. Countries are firstly differentiated along categories of insecurity intotencategoriesandarethenaggregatedtorankeachcountryonanoverall level of insecurity. Longitudinal data from 1970 up to 1995 is used to gain an overallvalueforinsecurity.11
18
WemainlyfollowtheideaoftheGECHSprojectasregardsthestructureof the aggregation of the dimensions of human insecurity. However, we modify thedimensionsandchoiceofindicators.IncontrasttoGECHSwewillskipdata interpolation for missing values due to the fact that we will only use cross sectionaldatafor2008andnotatimeseriesoveralongerperiod.Thisaimsat avoiding a high number of missing values especially in periods prior to 2000 andinadditionatgettingatimepointimageofhumaninsecurityratherthan anaverageforalongertimeperiod.Theindexresemblessomeelementsofthe GECHS construction but focuses on a defined point in time (namely the year 2008) and differs in the choice of operationalized dimensions. In other words, sincewechooseasimilaraggregationtechniqueinsomeareasofourindex,itis in a way comparable to the early attempt of GECHS. However, we take on a significantlydifferentperspectiveofoperationalizationofhuman(in)securityas aconcept.ThisarguesforareasonableextensionoftheattemptofGECHS. In line with our understanding of human insecurity as vulnerability of people, our operationalization for the Human (In)Security Index is even more closelybasedontheoriginalthinkingoftheUNDPReportasweinterpretit. However,thereisoneexception:ThedimensionsofPersonalandCommunity Security are combined to one dimension due to practical and methodological reasons: Personal security focuses on the basic threats caused by physical violence, be it from states, groups or individual persons, whilst community security aims at protecting people from their loss of traditional practices and membershipincertaingroups,beitafamily,acommunity,anorganizationora racial or ethnic group from which people derive cultural identity. Tests in preparation of the index have shown that for now (due to the available statistical data) the linkage (and correlation) between these two dimensions is especially high: given the fact that violation of physical integrity also impacts oncommunitytrustandlevelsofbehaviorincommunities.Ahighnumberof violentacts,regardlesswhethercarriedoutbystateornonstateactors,havea negativeimpactonsocialcohesionwhichcanbemoreeffectivelymaintainedin functioningcommunities. TheHuman(In)SecurityIndexconcentratesonthevulnerabilityofpeoplein atwofoldway:firstly,assessingtheactualthreatineachdimensionallowsfor a differentiated understanding of the respective insecurity dimension as such. That is, it allows for differentiation: whilst, for example, the dimension of
11
Detailedaggregatingprocedureandchoiceofindicatorscanbefoundontheprojecthomepage: http://www.gechs.org/aviso/06/.
environmental security may show low values, the threat to political security may be much higher for the same country. This could lead to differentiated agendas when having to set priorities and will thereby help to direct priority andattentionto(morerelevant)areasofconcern,andpreventfuturedamages in a more precise and efficient way. The Human (In)Security Index will contribute to a better alignment of the assessment of vulnerability and correspondingagendasetting.Tothateffect,strategiccoursesofactionmaybe chosen,dependingonthevalueofeachdimension.Secondly,theoverallvalue for each country sheds light on the actual human (in)security situation in a given country; countries may be compared to each other and those countries whosecitizensarethreatenedmostseverelycanclearlybeidentified.Thismay help to gather additional momentum to ask for governmental and non governmentalpolicyresponsesandtherespectiveresourcesneeded.
19
3.1
PreliminaryRemarksontheHuman(In)SecurityDimensions
Inthissection,weshallexplicatetheseveraldimensionsandpointtoindicative threats that can be identified in each dimension. Additionally, the indicators chosenforeachdimensionareshortlyintroducedandsubstantiated. TheHumanDevelopmentReportstatesthatEconomicSecurityrequiresan assured basic income, usually from productive and remunerative work, or in the last resort from a publicly financed safety net (UNDP 1994: 24). In other words,economicsecuritymeansbeingabletoprovideforaminimumstandard oflivingor,ifthisisnotthecase,beingsecuredbysomekindofsocialsecurity providedbythestateorprivateactors.Accordingly,unemploymentaswellas underemploymentisindicativeissue/threatstoeconomicsecurity.Bothcanbe compensated (to varying extent) by an existing social safety net. This may be providedbyeitherthestateorprivateactors.12Whatismore,theactualaccess to public services can account for another factor that endangers economic security. It is therefore crucial to measure the equal access individuals enjoy regardlessoftheirsocialbackground,theirreligion,ethnicityandgenderandto estimatetowhatextentinstitutionsaresufficientlyabletocompensateforgross socialdifferences(BertelsmannTransformationIndex2008). Againstthisbackground,economicsecurityisoperationalizedby: a) Gross Domestic Product per Capita at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) (Source: International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database2008)andthe BertelsmannTransformationIndexCombinationoftwoIndicators:Social SafetyNetsandEqualOpportunity(Source:BertelsmannFoundationBTI 2008)
b)

12
Theauthorsarewellawareofthefactthatsocialsafetynetsdonotexistineverycountryand thattheymaysometimesbesubstitutedtoavaryingextentbythefamilyorthecommunity. However,dataavailabilitydoesnotofferthepossibilitytomeasurethiskindofsocialsafety.
20
The first indicator was chosen since it illustrates the overall economic performance of a given country allowing for international comparison. This indicator was chosen instead of unemployment rates since definitions of an unemployedpersonstronglyvaryacrosscountries,whichmakesinternational comparison very problematic. The indicators of Social Safety Nets and Equal Opportunity are part of the Status Index regarding the state of the market economyinacountryandarepartofthesubcriterionofthewelfarestate.The presenceofsocialsafetynetsdepictsthegivenpossibilitytocompensateforthe loss of income, health care and prevention of poverty. Measuring equal opportunity shows to what extent a country provides equal access to public servicesforitscitizens. Food Security implies that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. This requires that people have ready access to foodthattheyhaveanentitlementtofood,bygrowingitforthemselves,by buying it or by taking advantage of a public food distribution system (UNDP 1994:27).Theproblemhereisnotthemereavailabilityoffood,buttheactual access individuals enjoy to basic food. This might either be constricted by unequal distribution (physical access) or the lack of purchasing power (economic access). What is more, malnutrition may be caused by a variety of factors such as social structures, armed conflicts, lack of education or environmentalcatastrophessuchastheCycloneNargisthatstruckMyanmarin May2008. The cyclonestronglyaffected the country that wasalready marked by a dire humanitarian situation with growing impoverishment and deterioratingsocialservicestructures.Humanbeingsareevenmorevulnerable toeconomiccrisisornaturalshockshere(InternationalCrisisGroup2008). Accordingly,foodsecurityismeasuredbythe a) b) Number of Children Under Five Underweighted for Age (Source: World HealthOrganizationWHOSTATIS2006)andbythe Percentage of Population that is Undernourished (Source: Food and AgriculturalOrganizationFAOSTAT20032005).
Measuringchildmalnutritionisinternationallyrecognizedasawaytoestimate thenutritionalstatusandhealthinpopulationsingeneral.Whatismore,child malnutrition is linked to several other factors such as poverty, low levels of education and limited access to health care. Children who suffer from malnutritionasaresultofpoordietsaremorevulnerabletoillnessesanddeath, malnutrition also affects their cognitive development and their health status later in life. A failure to meet these needs will have permanent consequences that may include stunting, reduced cognition and increased susceptibility to infectiousdiseases(GlobalHungerIndex2008:27).Assuch,thisindicatoralso showsthethreatstopotentialfuturedevelopmentofyounggenerations,often oneofthemorevulnerablegroupswithinthesocietiesasalreadyindicatedby the remarks on youth unemployment at the beginning of this chapter. Additionally,thepercentageofthepopulationthatisundernourishedprovides the overall picture of the vulnerability of human beings with regards to food security. FoodSecurityiscloselyrelatedtothedimensionofHealthSecuritywhichis directed towards the protection from major causes of death, including mainly
infectiousandparasiticdiseasesespeciallyindevelopingcountries.Mostofthe deaths caused by infectious diseases are linked to malnutrition and polluted water.Forindustrializedcountries,themajorcausesofdeatharediseasesofthe circulatorysystem,oftenconnectedtodietandlifestyle(UNDP1994:27).What is more, polluted water constitutes one of the major causes for diarrhea, a waterrelated disease causing up to 4 per cent of victims worldwide (Global WaterSupplyandSanitationAssessmentReport2000).Furthermore,thespread of HIV/AIDS poses another major risk to health security. Additionally, epidemicsmayalsoaffectthefunctioningofsocieties,sinceillhealthmaybea direct cause for poverty since it reduces the possibility of productive and remunerative work and is thus directly related to an increase in household income(Pederson2008:27). It is evident that the problem of infectious diseases can no longer be regardedasamedicalproblemalonebuthastobelinkedtosecurityissues,too. The crossborder character of infectious diseases heightens the importance of implementing efficient strategies to encounter continued human loss, an outstanding concern especially since the infection with the abovementioned diseasescanactuallybeprevented.Againstthisbackground,infectiousdiseases andtheinfluenceonchildmortalityrates,ascanbeexemplifiedbythedeaths causedbymalaria,arethemostimportantthreatstohealthsecurity. According to this, our Human (In)Security Index measures health security by the a) b) Number of Total Population affected by Diseases (Source: World Health OrganizationWHOGlobalHealthAtlas2007)andthe ChildMortalityRate(Source:U.S.CensusBureau,InternationalDatabase 2008).
21
The number of total population affected by diseases depicts the cases mentioned above and demonstrates how vulnerable individuals are towards infectious diseases. The following diseases are aggregated within the first indicator: HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and cholera. Additionally, measuringthechildmortalityrateconstitutesoneoftheleadingindicatorsfor thelevelofchildhealthandtheoveralldevelopmentinacountry.Similarlyto theindicatormeasuringchildrenunderfivethatareunderweightedthisfactor pointsouttheoverallhealthinapopulation. As defined by the Human Development Report 1994 Environmental Securityincludesthreatsinflictedbythedegradationoflocalecosystemsand that of the global system, mainly global warming. In developing countries, access to clean water is increasingly becoming a reason for ethnic strife and political tension, whilst for developed countries the pollution of the air constitutes a major threat to environmental security (UNDP 1994: 28ff.). The linkbetweenenvironmentalissuesandhuman(in)securityisespeciallyclose,as much of the environmental problems are directly affected by human activity and yet, their security is bound to the access to natural recourses and their vulnerability to environmental change (Khagram/Clark/Raad 2003). Global warmingcausingamultitudeofeffectssuchasincreasesinglobalaverageair and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globalaveragesealevelposesafiercethreattothesecurityofhumanbeingsat
global level. Furthermore, natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, drought or wildfire pose another major risk to the wellbeing and security of humanbeings. Besidessuchdirecteffectsasthetotalnumberofreportedvictimscausedby environmental catastrophes, there are also more indirect and longlasting consequencesfortheenvironment,theagricultureandindustrialproductionso thatthefuturedevelopmentofsocietiesisincreasinglyendangeredwhenhitby naturaldisasters.Consequently,environmentalsecuritynotonlycauseshuman butalsoeconomiclosses.Achangingenvironmentcanimpactnotonlyonthe wellbeinganddignityofhumanbeings,butalsooneconomicproductivityand political stability. Competition about water resources constitutes a prominent caseinpoint.Asmentionedabove,pollutedwaterisoneofthemainproblems in developing countries and access to clean water may cause or heighten politicalunrest.However,waterpollutionmainlyresultsfrompoorsanitation which is why the second indicator as stated below combines two factors to depictthiscloserelation.Withregardstoanotheraspect,wateraccessnotonly isacrucialconditionforthesurvivalandwellbeingofhumanbeings,butalso neededforagricultureandtheindustry. Against this background, environmental security is operationalized by the followingtwoindicatorswhichisfirstlythe a) Percentage of Population that is Affected by Disasters (Source: The International Emergency Disasters Database EMDA 2006) and secondly the Mean of Percentage of Population with Access to Clean Water and Percentage with Access to Improved Water Sanitation (Source: Joint MonitoringProgrammeforWaterandSupplyandSanitationbyUNICEF andWHO2006)
22
b)
The first indicator shows the percentage of the population that is affected by disasters,suchasfloodsorearthquakesandiscrucialsinceithelpstopaintthe broader picture that is caused by environmental catastrophes. Crossborder natural disasters are a particular evident example that security and living conditionsinonecountrycanaffectthesecurityandlivingconditionsofother countries or even in other regions. This is also true for other factors such as international terrorism or migration. The second indicator combines two aspects, access to clean water and access to improved water sanitation, both factorsstronglyrelatedtoimprovedenvironmentalconditions. Asmentionedabove,wechosetocombinethefollowingtwodimensionsto one dimension, that is, Personal Security and Community Security. Personal Security is defined as security from threats from physical violence. These threatsmaycomefromthestate(physicaltorture),fromotherstates(war),from other groups of people (ethnic conflicts), from individuals (crime or street violence,theymightbedirectedagainstwomen(rapeordomesticviolence)and threattoselfsuchasdrugsorsuicide(UNDP1994:30).Clearly,thisdimension coversawiderangeofthreatstohumanbeingsoriginatingfrommostdifferent
sources. We will concentrate on violence executed by the state, which will be furtheroutlinedbelow.13 Community Security aims at the protection of people from their loss of traditional practices and membership in certain groups, be it a family, a community, an organization or a racial or ethnic group from which people derive cultural identity, that provide them with security. A loss of traditional practices may be caused by modernization, but also by sectarian and ethnic violence(UNDP1994:31f.). Of the persons that are most vulnerable with regards to personal and community security, internally displaced persons (IDPs) are probably the largestgroupintheworld(Fielden2008:1).Theirsecurityisaffectedinmany ways: They are often denied their basic human rights, are endangered by physicalviolence,areunprotectedbytheirnationalgovernmentandthusmay suffer from malnutrition, missing access to clean water, health care and education. Woman and children are especially vulnerable in those conditions andarethreatenedbysexualandgenderbasedviolence.IDPsmostlylackany economic opportunities so that they are hardly able to secure a minimum standardoflivingbythemselves(Fielden2008).Insum,IDPsarefacedwitha variety of lifethreatening concerns. Despite the multiple reasons for their displacement and the variety of subgroups of IDPs, their common ground is thelinktobothcommunityandpersonalsecurity.Beingturnedintoarefugee orinternallydisplacedpersonmakesindividualsmorevulnerabletotheabove mentioned threats. What is more, formerly functioning communities that are wartorn and affected by political tensions might no longer serve as securing basis for individuals who derive their security from their membership to a certain ethnic, religious or racial group. Quite the contrary might be the case giventhefactthatbeingamemberofacertaingrouporfamilymightactually be the cause for insecurity which is then again clearly linked to personal insecurity.Refugeeandmigrationflowsalsoindicatepossiblefurtherinsecurity sincethesocietalinfrastructuremightbedamagedandthuscommunitiesmove away from traditional forms of solidarity and societal trust is continuously decreased.Causingdamagestothesocietalinfrastructuremaythenalsoinflict uponotherdimensionsofhumansecuritysuchaseconomicorhealthsecurity when access to productive and remunerative work or to health care is aggravated. Thecombineddimensionofpersonalandcommunityisoperationalizedbythe followingtwoindicatorswhicharethe a) b) Total Number of people assisted by the UNHCR (Source: UN Refugee Agency2006)andthe PoliticalTerrorScale(Source:PoliticalTerrorScaleProject2007).
23

13
Please note: Data on crime and street violence, rape and domestic violence is lacking and not reliable,especiallyfordevelopingcountries.Forthisreason,thesethreatswereexcludedfrom ouroperationalizationandareindirectlymeasuredbyoursetofindicators.
24
The Political Terror Scale measures the levels of political violence using two differentsources,theyearlyCountryReportsofAmnestyInternationalandthe U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The PTS rathermeasurestheviolationsofphysicalintegrityrightsthangeneralpolitical repression,forwhichreasonthisindicatorischosentooperationalizepersonal security. The PTS measure state violence (admittedly, it is not always clear whether the state is directly responsible for violence), however, the indicator doesnotincludeviolenceexecutedbyindividuals,e.g.crime,orgenderbased violencesuchasdomesticviolenceagainstwomenorfemalegenitalmutilation (Wood/Gibney 2008: 3ff.). According to the latest reports by Amnesty International, we still witness gross violation of human rights despite the progressmadeinhumanrightsprotectionoverthepastyears. Finally, the dimension of Political Security is addressed. Following the Human Development Report 1994, political security focuses on the protection of basic human rights, which is, as the Report emphasizes, one of the most importantaspectsofhumansecurity.Violationsofhumanrightsmayespecially originateduringtimesofpoliticalunrest,butalsofrompoliticalrepressionby thestateorsystematictorture(UNDP1994:22f.). One of the major concerns up to date is securing people from state repression.2,390peopleareestimatedtohavebeenexecutedworldwide;China, SaudiArabiaandUSAaccountedforthehighestnumberofexecutions.Then, freedomofthepressisoneofthemostessentialrightsandhighlyindicativefor this dimension of human security. For the past three years (2006 to 2008), the PressFreedomIndexlistsNorthKorea,TurkmenistanandEritreaastheworst violators of press freedom. Countries such as Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan which are involved in armed conflict and failing to solve dire domestic problemsarealsorankedasblackzonesforthepress(PressFreedomIndex 2008). The Human (In)Security Index will use the following two indicators, whichare a) b) Index of Five Indicators14 concerning Personal Security (Source: Human RightsDataProjectCIRI2006) PressFreedomIndex(Source:ReporterswithoutBorders2006)
Itisimportanttonotethatboth,PTSandCIRI,usethesamedatatocodetheir indicators, that is, statesponsored violations of human rights termed as physical integrity rights. However, the CIRI divides the category of physical integrity violence into several subcategories, which are: disappearances, killing,tortureandimprisonment(whicharefouroutoffiveindicatorsusedfor the operationalization carried out here). Secondly, the PTS ranks the government abuses, whilst the CIRI analyses the frequency and type of violation so that these two indicators paint a different picture, though they
14
The indicators are: Disappearance, Extrajudicial Killing, Political Imprisonment, Torture and Assassination. All Indicators are coded on a scale ranging from 0 (frequently practiced) to 2 (havenotoccurred).Forafurtherdescriptionsee http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_variables_short_descriptions.pdf.
clearly correlate with each other (on detail see the remarks in chapter 4.2) (Wood/Gibney 2008). The Press Freedom Index is composed from a questionnaire that comprises 52 questions on press freedom that the organization Reporters without Borders distributes among its partner organizationsonanannualbasis. Havinglaidoutourconceptualbackgroundforthechoiceofindicators,we will now point out the methodological background for developing and constructingtheHuman(In)SecurityIndex(HISI).
3.2
Methodology:ComputationoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndex
25
The aim of the Human (In)Security Index as presented in this paper is to operationalizethecoredimensionsofhumansecurity.Thishastwoimportant implications: Firstly, the indicators that were chosen to operationalize each dimensionmeasurehumaninsecurity.Secondly,wewillpolarizeourindicators inanegativeway,meaningthehigherthevalue,thehigherthethreattohuman security. By developing this kind of Human (In)Security Index we are able to identify the dimensions which present the most severe threats at a given momentoftime.Thismayputadditionalimpetusonthenecessitytorespond tospecificthreatsandmayhelptopreventafurtherdeteriorationofthehuman (in)security situation as such. We argue that a Human (In)Security Index will contributetoananalyticalrefinementofthenotionofhumansecurityandwill also allow for improved strategic actions since efficient policies towards the differentfieldsofactivityareneededtorespondtotherootcausesofinsecurity. In short, a Human (In)Security Index will help to improve vulnerability assessmentandprioritysetting. The Human (In)Security Index includes 209 countries and regions (such as GazaandtheWestBank).ThesixdimensionsasdefinedbytheUNDPReport (personal and community security are combined to one dimension) are operationalized by two indicators each and are aggregated to countryspecific values.Figure3illustratesthemanifestindicatorsandthelatentconstruct(that is: human insecurity) they measure. The Human (In)Security Index is a relationalindextothemaximumandminimumvalueofeveryindicator(andin a second step to every dimension). Although outliers are computed out, extreme cases (in relation to the mean) may bias the data. This applies in particulartotheenvironmentaldimension,wheresingularcasessuchasaone time natural disaster may occur. Given such a situation, a high percentage of thepopulationmightbeaffected.Thescoreforallothercountriesiscomputed intorelationtothat.Thiscertainlydoesnotimplythat,forexample,thegreen environmental dimension should be interpreted as a complete absence of affected people. However, the threatening potential is hardly at hand here in relationtotheextremecases.
Figure3:MatrixofIndicatorsandDimensionsoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndex(HISI)
26
There are three possible and adequate ways to compute the indicator values andtoaggregatethemtotheseveraldimensions(OECD2008:83ff): Zstandardizationofvalues(withthemeanasareferencepoint) Definingintervalsonourown(oroncomputingquartiles) Rescalingthevaluesthroughcomputation It is important to keep in mind that these methods can only be used for variablesmeasuredonametriclevel.Forvariablesonanordinallevel(likethe Bertelsmann Transformation Index for Social Nets or the combination of CIRI indicators)aspecificcomputationisusedtorescalethevaluesbetween0and 100 (this range is the basis for all indicators to be aggregated to dimension value). Thecomputingproceduresaccountforthefollowingmetricvariables: Gross Domestic Product per Capita based on (Purchasing Power Parity PPP) ChildrenUnderFiveUnderweightedforAge PercentageofPopulationthatisUndernourished TotalPopulationAffectedbyDiseases ChildMortalityRate PercentageofPopulationthatisAffectedbyDisasters Mean of Percentage of Population with Access to Clean Water and PercentagewithAccesstoImprovedWaterSanitation TotalNumberofpeopleassistedbytheUNHCR Theindicatorsarerescaledbasedonthefollowingformula:
Allcountriesarerankedintheirrelationtotheextremecases(withthehighest and lowest score on the indicator) at a range of 0 to 100. In this way, the countriesexperiencingextremeproblemswithregardstohumaninsecurityare especiallypointedout.Toavoidanartificialskewnessregardingtooutlierswe excluded the general calculation by adequately identifying them from each indicatorsdistribution.15 Afterwardsthemeanforeverycountryineverydimensioniscalculatedby:
The dimension values for every country are summed up and divided by the number of valid rated dimensions to gain a country value for the overall Human (In)Security Index which is the overall mean of all valid dimensions (somecountriesdonothavevalidvaluesoneverydimensionduetothefactof lackingdata).Theformulaforthisprocedureis:
27
The dimensions and the overall index then vary between 0 (lowest level of humaninsecurity)and100(highestlevelofhumaninsecurity).It isimportant tonotethatallindicatorshavethesameweightingforthecomputationofthe dimensions.Oneexceptionoccurs:whenacountryhasamissingvalueinone of the two indicators, its dimension value is identical with the valid indicator value.Inastatisticalmanner,theindicatoristhenoverestimatedinrelationto alldimensionsindicatorswithmorethanonevalidvalue.However,thisdoes not hinder the analytical interpretation as this only counts for the dimension value,theoverallIndexofHuman(In)Securityisthereforeacombinationofthe dimensionsvaluewithconstantweightsofeverydimension. After computing the values, we divide the Human (In)Security Index into quartileslabelledinthefollowingcategoriesbyscores(seeTable1).Inlinewith the computation procedure, the index is an additive and not a multiplicative one.

15
A country can be regarded as an outlier when its value differs more than three standard deviationsfromtheindicatorsmean.
Table1:AssessingtheLevelofHuman(In)Security Level Human(In)Security Level Level ofHumanSecurity Score Definition
1 2
025
Thereisnosystematicandsustainablethreattolife/ survival Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survival,but individualsandgroupsusuallyhavestrategies,means, behaviouraloptions,oraid/helpattheirdisposaltocope withthesethreats. Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survivaland individualsandgroupshaveonlylimitedorinadequate strategies,means,behaviouraloptions,oraid/helpat theirdisposaltocopewiththesethreats. Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survivaland individualsandgroupshavenoadequatestrategies, means,behaviouraloptions,oraid/helpattheirdisposal tocopewiththesethreats.
LevelofRelative HumanSecurity
2650
28
3 4
LevelofRelative HumanInsecurity
5175
LevelofHuman Insecurity
76100
3.3
Findings
Inthefollowingsection,thefindingsineachdimensionarepresentedascharts illustrating the frequencies of countries falling in the respective categories of human (in)security at a regional macro level.16 Additionally, for some dimensions a world map that corresponds with the typology laid out in table oneisincluded.17Itshouldbenoted,thatalthoughtwocountriesmayfallinto oneinterval,theirvaluesmaydiffertosomeextentwhenbotharelocatedatthe different end of the interval. This is the case, for example, for Belgium and Belarus which both fall into the level of human security (see Annex 2), but of course differ from each other especially with respect to political security. Additionally,itisimportanttokeepinmindthateventhecategoryofrelative human security might imply a problematic level for an adequate life, that is, routinesofdailylifemightbeconstrainedalsothere.
3.3.1
HumanEconomic(In)Security
An overall secure level ofeconomic security (GDP per capita and existence of Social Nets) is mainly at hand in North America, Western Europe and some partsofAsiaandOceania.InAfrica,onlyasmallnumberofcountriesreachthe highest category, for example, Gabon, Namibia, Botswana and South Africa.
16
TheregionsareidentifiedaccordingtoUNSTATSidentificationnumbers.Fordetailssee http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm. Foracompleteoverviewonallworldmaps,pleaseseewww.humansecurity.de.
17
The overall highest threat to economic security occurs in Africa, especially in theDemocraticRepublicofCongo,GuineaBissau,SomaliaandLiberia.Nearly allpartsofAfricaareaffectedbyarelativelyhighlevelofeconomicinsecurity and15countriesareonthehighestlevelofhumaninsecurity(outofoverall19 countriesinthiscategory).Incomefordailylifeisverylowandvastlimitations of an adequate life occur. If the case of unemployment is at hand, a high numberofAfricancountrieslackaminimumnetofsocialsafetytocompensate for the problem of economic insecurity that is caused by not being able to secure a minimum standard of living. Since the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (one of the indicators for this dimension) also measures a constraint in equal(economic)opportunitiesbesidesalackofsocialsafetynets,ahighlevel of insecurityimplies restrictions in both aspects. Thisapplies tosome parts of SouthAsia.Moreover,NorthKorea,Afghanistan,MyanmarandNepalfacethe same economical problems, but even India, Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries in East Asia with their overall high population numbers fail in providing adequate economic opportunities. In the Americas, Bolivia and ParaguayandsomepartsofCentralAmericafacethesameeconomicsecurity problems. Overall,AfricaandSouthtoSouthEastAsiaaremostaffectedbythreatsto economicsafetyandsecurity.EspeciallyinAfricanearlyallgeographicregions face alarming problems. Economic insecurity is one of the major problems worldwide.Theimportancetochallengethisthroughpovertyreductionisstill oneofthemajortaskstoday,evenmoresosinceeconomicsecurityisstrongly relatedtohealthandfoodsecurity.
Table2:RegionalDistributionofHumanEconomic(In)Security UNMacro Region EconomicDimensionNumberofCountries fallinginoneofthehuman(in)securitylevels Level1 Africa Oceania Americas Asia Europe Total 3 2 8 9 27 49 Level2 9 5 20 15 9 58 Level3 25 2 7 18 4 56 Level4 15 0 0 4 0 19 52 9 35 46 40 182 TotalNumberof Countries
29
3.3.2
HumanFood(In)Security
Food insecurity, measured by the percentage of population that is undernourishedandthenumberofchildrenunderfiveunderweightedforage isasevereproblemmainlyinAfricaandSouthAsia.EspeciallyinSubSahara
Africa,foodsecurityisamajorproblemforhugepartsofthepopulation.Some countrieslikeEthiopia,Eritrea,theDemocraticRepublicofCongo,Angolaand Madagascarfacealarmingscoresinthisdimension. Inotherpartsoftheworld,onlyAfghanistanfallsintothiscategory(Level of Human Insecurity). But even some countries in SouthEast Asia (Laos, Cambodia,Bangladesh,NepalandIndia)andYemenfaceproblemsconcerning theadequatesupplyoffoodfortheirpopulation.Besidesthesecountries,food insecurityingeneraldoesnotconstituteacentralproblemforCentralAsiaand the Middle East region. In the Americas, Haiti keeps on facing problems with fundamental food supply for its population. The same applies (with some restrictions) to Bolivia, Nicaragua and Guatemala. Food insecurity in Europe canberegardedasabsent.Here,theproblemofmissingdataforthisdimension occurs, however, it can be assumed that Spain, Poland, Portugal and Austria (with missing data) will not be ranked as highly alarming concerning food insecurity.18
Table3:RegionalDistributionofHumanFood(In)Security UN Macro Region Level1 12 7 28 27 39 113 FoodDimensionNumberofCountriesfallinginoneofthe human(in)securitylevels Level2 19 1 5 10 1 36 Level3 14 0 2 7 0 23 Level4 7 0 0 2 0 9 52 8 35 46 40 181 TotalNumber ofCountries
30
Africa Oceania Americas Asia Europe Total

18
Data provided by FAOSTAT cover the years 20032005 (latest available year used), since adequateandreliabledataisproblematicor/andnotavailableforthefollowingyears.
Figure4:WorldMapHumanFood(In)Security
31
3.3.3
HumanHealth(In)Security
32
Health insecurity is measured by the occurrence of infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS,malaria,choleraandtuberculosis)andthechildmortalityrate.All partsofSubSaharanAfricafacetheseproblems.Infectiousdiseasesoccurinall ofthesecountries,malaria,HIV/AIDSandtuberculosisarealarmingproblems forahighnumberofAfricancountriesandtheirpopulation.Itcanbeassumed that already for today the spread of HIV/AIDS influences the economically workingpartofAfricancountries.ApartfromAfrica,onlyAfghanistan(dueto the worldwide highest number of child mortality) and Papua New Guinea reach such a disastrous status. In Asia, Pakistan, Mongolia, Bangladesh and Laoshealthinsecurityalsoisaproblem.Havingthisstated,healthinsecurityis in general no major problem in the Americas (only Haiti is affected here), Oceania (except Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and TimorLeste), AsiaandEurope. Health insecurity can mainly be regarded as an African phenomenon. Notwithstanding, health insecurity caused by an unhealthy life style (in industrialized countries) might also be or become a problem. However, since wefocusondirectdeathratesfrominsecurity(andnotindirectlybylifestyles) Europe, Americas and large parts of Asia and Oceania perform quite well in thisdimension.
Table4:RegionalDistributionofHumanHealth(In)Security HealthDimensionNumberofCountriesfallinginoneof UNMacro Region Level1 Africa Oceania Americas Asia Europe Total 12 7 34 39 38 130 Level 2 19 2 1 6 1 29 Level3 13 0 0 2 1 16 Level4 8 0 0 0 0 8 52 9 35 47 40 183 thehuman(in)securitylevels TotalNumberof Countries
Figure5:WorldMapHumanHealth(In)Security
33
3.3.4
HumanEnvironmental(In)Security
34
Theenvironmentaldimensionisthecategorythatisstronglyaffectedbyshort term changes, namely by natural disasters, due to one specific indicator: the number of people affected by disasters. Since natural disasters might affect a highpercentageofapopulation,theextremecasesaresignificant.Wecertainly acknowledgethatthismightoverestimatethefindingsforthisdimensiontoa certaindegree;however,theindexisintendedtoshowthreatsatacertainpoint in time so that the neglect of sudden catastrophes would also bias the interpretation. This indicator is combined with the access to improved water sourcesandsanitationfacilities. The countries with the highest alarming status are Somalia and Eritrea (according to floods) in Africa and Belize in Central America. Other countries also experienced disasters (like China), but in addition to that they have a higherperformancewithregardstosanitationandwatersupply.Somaliadoes not perform very well with a view to both indicators. It is also important to keepthefollowinginmind:Evenwhenasmallpercentageofthepopulationis affected by disasters this might result in a complete loss of housing and economicinsecurityasaresultofnaturaldisastersinsteadofbeingeconomically insecureasmeasuredbytheindicatorswithintheeconomicdimension.
Table5:RegionalDistributionofHumanEnvironment(In)Security EnvironmentDimensionNumberofCountriesfallinginoneof UNMacro Region Level1 Africa Oceania Americas Asia Europe Total 25 8 30 40 39 142 Level2 23 1 2 5 1 32 Level3 2 0 0 2 1 4 Level4 2 0 2 0 0 4 52 9 34 47 40 182 thehuman(in)securitylevels TotalNumber ofCountries
3.3.5
HumanPersonalandCommunity(In)Security
Personal and community insecurity is a worldwide phenomenon. The most alarming cases can be localized in Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia. Due to the developments after 9/11,theUnitedStatesalsofallsintoalowercategoryherethantheydoinother dimensions (as a highperformer). This mainly results from the scoring of the Political Terror Scale, one of the two indicators for this dimension besides the
number of people assisted by the UNHCR. Apart from this, threats to communityandpersonalsecurityareespeciallysevereinallpartsofAsia(for example China and Pakistan), Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Serbia and Bosnia Herzegovina) and Central/South America (Brazil, El Salvador and Venezuela e.g.).Thedimensionofpersonalandcommunitysecurityisthereforenotonly an African and Asian phenomenon. Especially South America shows a severe level of insecurity in comparison to the other dimensions. Not only Colombia withitshighnumbersofIDPsishighlyranked,butalsoBrazilisacaseinpoint here.
Table6:RegionalDistributionofHumanPersonalandCommunity(In)Security PersonalandCommunityDimensionNumberofCountries UNMacro Region Level1 Africa Oceania Americas Asia Europe Total 16 8 21 18 35 98 Level2 26 1 13 21 4 65 Level3 7 0 0 5 1 13 Level4 3 0 1 3 0 7 52 9 35 47 40 183 fallinginoneofthehuman(in)securitylevels TotalNumberof Countries
35
3.3.6
HumanPolitical(In)security
PoliticalinsecuritymaymainlybedescribedasanAsianphenomenon.Large parts of Asia experience a high level of human insecurity regarding political issues. Eightcountries are faced with alarming threats, four times higher than in other parts of the world. Iran, Myanmar, China, North Korea and Pakistan are only some examples. In the following category of relative insecurity, Asia also wins the race against the African continent. In Africa severe political situations are mainly situated in NorthEast Africa. The Americas experience such a high level in Cuba, Mexico and Colombia. It is important to keep in mind that the institutional aspects of the current political situation are not measured, but the daily experience of citizens regarding press freedom (Reporters Without Borders) and the occurrence of torture, political imprisonmentetc.throughtheCIRIindicators(aspointedoutbefore). The fact that some of the highly ranked states are authoritarian regimes (according to institutional aspects) is not the reason for their score (like the PolityIVranksthemwithafocusoninstitutionalaspects).If,forexample,one countryisahighlyauthoritarianstatebutsomehowrespectsacertaindegreeof civilianliberties(measuredthroughthescalesofFreedomHouse),thiscountry
may rank on a slightly higher level of human security. By choosing our indicators, a bias towards (the institutional aspects of) democracies was avoided.
Table7:RegionalDistributionofHumanPersonalandCommunity(In)Security PoliticalDimensionNumberofCountriesfallinginone UNMacro Region ofthehuman(in)securitylevels Level1 Africa Oceania Americas Asia Europe Total 13 3 16 7 32 71 Level2 22 2 6 16 4 50 Level3 14 1 3 15 2 35 Level4 1 0 1 8 0 10 50 6 26 46 38 166 TotalNumberof Countries
36
Figure6:WorldMapHumanPolitical(In)Security
37
3.3.7
HumanInsecurity
TheoverallHuman(In)SecurityIndexreflectsthepicturepaintedbytheseveral dimensionsalone:HumaninsecuritycertainlyisanAfricanandpartlyanAsian concern. This is not to neglect areas of concern in the rest of the world. However, only two out of the fifteen countries with the highest score are located outside Africa, namely: Afghanistan and Myanmar, 13 countries with the highest level of human insecurity are located in SubSaharan Africa. With regardstothepoliticaldimension,Asiaisthemostproblematicworldregion.
38
Somalia is ranked at the top, being the only country that receives the full scoringof100points(pleasenote:sincetheindexisrelational,onlyonecountry islistedattheendoftheinterval).SomaliaisfollowedbyEritrea,Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Ethiopia in the highest category of human insecurity. Nevertheless, countries that at first glance may not perform at a worrisome level of human insecurity, might still have challenges to cope with. Countries experiencing some kind of limitation to humansecurityaccountforabout59percentoftheworld.
Table8:RegionalDistributionofHuman(In)Security UNMacro Region Africa Oceania Americas Asia Europe Total Level1 3 5 19 12 36 75 Human(In)Security Level2 19 4 15 20 4 62 Level3 25 0 1 14 0 40 Level4 5 0 0 1 0 6 Total Numbers of Countries 52 9 35 47 40 183
Table9showsthefifteencountriesthatperformworstaccordingtotheHuman (In)Security Index. As pointed out before, mainly African countries despite wellknown progresses show an overall alarming status due to threats to humansecurity.Thesecountriesconstantlyreceivehighscoresinnearlyevery dimension. The first six countries of the highest score fall into the overall category of human insecurity (Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, the Democratic RepublicoftheCongo,BurundiandEthiopia).Thefollowingninecountriesare groupedatthelevelofrelativehumaninsecurity.

Table9:TheWorstHuman(In)SecurityPerformers Country Somalia Eritrea Afghanistan Congo,Dem.Rep. Burundi Ethiopia Liberia Sudan CentralAfricanRepublic Angola Chad Mozambique Myanmar Uganda Niger Human(In)SecurityScore 100,00 88,58 85,97 83,28 79,51 78,02 73,56 73,51 71,71 71,29 70,52 69,51 68,88 68,23 67,34
39
Regarding the high performers of human security (with a very low overall threat) all countries (except Japan) geographically belong to Western Europe. The Scandinavian countries Norway, Finland and Sweden perform at a high levelregardinghumansecurity.MeasuredbytheHuman(In)SecurityIndex,it isNorwaythatperformsbest.
Table10:TheBestHuman(In)SecurityPerformers Country Norway Netherlands Japan Sweden Finland Germany Belgium Australia Slovenia Ireland Human(In)SecurityScore 0,32 2,26 2,62 2,93 2,99 3,40 3,49 3,51 3,75 3,82
Figure7:WorldMapHuman(In)Security
40
3.4
ADescriptiveAnalysisoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndexwith otherIndices
Asoutlinedbefore,ouraimistomeasurehumaninsecurityinitssix(originally seven) dimensionsas defined by the UNDP andinthis wayapproach human insecurity in a broad sense. As is well known, there are other indices operationalizing related concepts in the field of development and peace research (e.g. the Human Development Index (HDI), the Failed States Index (FSI) or the Global Peace Index (GPI)).In order to demonstrate that we have measured something like a new latent construct in the field of development and peace and, more importantly, are thus able to explain a different phenomenonthanotherindicesbefore,theHuman(In)SecurityIndexhasbeen plotted and correlated19 to the Human Development Index (HDI), the Global Peace Index (GPI), the Failed States Index (FSI) and the State Fragility Index (SFI)byasimpleregressionanalysistogainasoundcomparison.20 TheinfluenceoftheHumanDevelopmentIndexisquitehigh,resultingina valueforrsquaredofaround0.8.Thehighcorrelationresultsfromthefactthat theGDPperCapitaisoneofthemaincomponentsoftheHDI.GDPperCapita influencesalotofotherindicatorsconcerningdevelopmentandsecurityissues since highincomelevelsreducealot of the security threats(butof course not all).Surely,thereareexceptionsandvariationsthatcountriesperformhighon theHDI(withanhighincomelevel)butexperienceHumanInsecurityinsome dimensions. The influence of the Global Peace Index on the Human (In)Security Index offersamoreinterestingresult:theinfluencemeasuredbyPearsonsr21isonly around 0.45. Accordingly, we observe a variation in measurement when analysing asimple plot between both indices. Althougha potentialregression line22pointsinthedirectionofapositiverelationship,therearesomecountries that vary from the forecasted values (by the regression line). More precisely, although some countries experience some peaceful times, our dimensions of human insecurity clearly identify threats to personal life.23 On the contrary, a relativelyhighlevelofhumansecuritymayalsooccurwithinarelativelynon peacefulsituationassuch.
19
41
Please note this argument is no statistical interpretation, but rather an interpretation of the covary of the pair wise comparison. Of course there may be a latent construct (e.g. development)thatinfluencesbothotherdimensions(e.g.HumanSecurityandPeace). Foradetailedoverviewandgraphicsofthecorrelationssee:www.humansecurity.de. Pleasekeepinmindtherestrictionsofastatisticalinterpretationofthecorrelation. Aregressionlineonlyhelpsusininterpretingtheplottinginadescriptivemanner.Wedonot wanttoillustrateaninfluencebetweenbothconstructsbutratheracorrelationinadescriptive way.WedidnotadetailedresidualdiagnostictoguaranteetheBLUcharacteristicsoftheOLS estimatorfortheregressionline. Itshouldbenotedthatthiscomparisonisslightlylimited,sincetheGPIcomprisesasomewhat lownumberofobservationsandranksonly122countriesaltogether.
20
21
22
23
TheinfluenceoftheFailedStatesIndexissimilartotheoneoftheGPI.We observeapositiverelationshipbetweentheFSIandtheHISIbyplottingthem, but Pearsons r of around 0.6824 leaves some room for variation in the scores. Althoughstatefailuremightbestillatamoderatelevel,humaninsecuritycan havealreadyreachedahigherdegree. The regression between the Fragility Index and the HISI also shows a positive relationship with an Rsquared similar to the Human Development Indexatahighlevelof0.8.Yet,somecountriesvaryontheHuman(In)Security IndexcomparedtotheFragilityIndex.Someexperienceahighleveloffragility withalowlevelofhumaninsecurityandviceversa. Tosumup,theHISIoffersnewinsights.Thedescriptivepartofcomparing the HISI with other indices by plotting and correlation diagnosticsshows that theHISIcapturessomeadditionalpartsofalatentconstructlikedevelopment andpeacerelationaltotheestablishedindicesinthisfield.Sonewinstructive insightsaregained:thesix(originallysevenbytheUNDP)dimensions,which have been operationalized by two indicative indicators, are separately measuredandcombinedtotheoverallindexinasecondstep.Thisenablesusto differentiatebetweentheseveraldimensions:CitingtheexampleofGeorgia,it becomes apparent that human beings are much stronger threatened with regards to economic and personal and community security, but are hardly threatened by natural disasters (see Annex 2). Quite the contrary is the case when looking at Kiribati, an island located in the central Pacific Ocean: individuals are strongly threatened when it comes to the environmental dimension, but hardly threatened by personal and community security. The data in Annex 2 clearly depicts this case in point: Kiribati is one of the island states that are expected to be threatened by rising sea levels as an effect of global warming and climate change. It comes as no surprise that all the countries, which were identified those most endangered by potential threats (whichare:Eritrea,SomaliaandAfghanistan),scoredhighinalldimensions.
42
4.
Rsum
Since theHuman Development Reportin 1994 laiddown the groundworkfor contemporarythinkinginhumansecurity,thedebatehascenteredaroundtwo main aspects: firstly, the idea of human security has been (and still is) frequentlycriticizedforitsanalyticalambiguityandfluentdefinition.Secondly, the idea has also been criticized for the political implications it entails: the political usefulness of the concept itself has been questioned (McDonald 2002: 278).Inhavingbrieflypresentedthevariousschoolsofhumansecuritythinking we outlined the political impact the idea of human security has gained throughout time. The idea of human security has gained importance in decisionmaking, policy design and programmatic implementation. Especially during the 1990s, the human security approach impacted on political agenda
24
Thesamerestrictionsforaninterpretationinastatisticalmannerapplyaswell.
setting in Canada and Japan which in this regard can be considered as the forerunners. The UN and its agencies as such and more recently the EU have alsocontributedtotheevolutiontheidea. Despitesometruepoliticalsuccessstory(likethebanningofantipersonal landmines), one of the major challenges still is a more concrete and clear conceptualization of human security. Advancing the idea of thresholds in relation to the actual measurement of levels of human (in)security is one step forward. As we have argued above, the crucial task is to measure human (in)security and to identify thresholds. As part of this endeavor an important step forward in this direction is to create a Human (In)Security Index that contributes to the refinement of the notion of human security and shows that the concept can be measured despite its dynamic and contextspecific nature. We are able to transfer the original thinking of the UNDP into a multi dimensionalindexthatdepictsthecorethreatstohumansecurity. The conceptualization of human security specifically addresses some challenges that hampered the acceptance and successful institutionalization of human security. First, although development, security and human rights are interlinked,ourconceptionrecognizesthathumansecurityisapreconditionfor human development, but not vice versa. People must first be secure from criticalandpervasivethreatstotheirvitalcore,whateverthecause,beforethe mechanisms of development can take root. Likewise, human rights abuses areonlyonecategoryofpotentialhumansecuritythreats,andmostshouldbe dealtwithoutsidethesecuritymandate(Martin/Owen2010:222). Moreover, our dimensional threshold approach helps to deal with the problem of conceptual overstretch by not allowing all threats in all places under every potential category of security to be prioritized (Martin/Owen 2010:222).Choosingrelevantandmeaningfulindicatorswhenoperationalizing the human insecurity dimensions, we propose that whilst there are certainly infinitepossibleharmsthatcouldthreatenanindividual,thereisonlyacertain numberthatcriticallyandpervasivelythreatensthevitalcoreoflargenumbers ofpeople.Secondly,thereisawaytofindcertainmeaningfulindicatorswecan usetoassessthelevelofinsecurityintherespectivedimensions. Concluding,wehavebeenabletocombinethedifferentschoolsofthought withintheHuman(In)SecurityIndexandtodisclosetheconceptualconnection of development and security (issues). The proposed thresholdbased conceptualization allows for a differentiation of security issues and security threats.Additionally,theHISIsubstantiatestherespectivethresholdsandthus isabletoserveasaguidelineforpolicymakersandscientistsalike.Itwillhelp decisionmakers to set priority agendas and take preventive and enduring actions. However,it is important to note that the HISI does not substitute country specific case studies or regional case studies. For example, the state performance as such does not tell us much about the (regional or group specific) spreading of a specific threat in the country (e.g. rural and urban dichotomies). Nevertheless, the Human (In)Security Index provides the basis for a comparative assessment of threats to the life and wellbeing of human beingsincertaincountries.Itallowsforacomprehensiveoverviewcoveringthe
43
countriesoftheworldandthuscontributestoidentifyingthemostvulnerable cases, yet, a deeper insight into the dimensions that have been labelled as insecure or relative insecure has to be carried out in a second step and is currentlybeyondthescopeofourproject. Finally,someaspectsremaintobechallengedinthefuture:Asmuchasthe index helps to improve the realignment of the assessment of vulnerability of humanbeingswithacorrespondingagendasetting,asteadyrefinementofthe index and the empirical thresholds is needed. This is closely related to the availabilityandreliabilityofdatathatcontinuouslyneedstobeimprovedinthe future. Certainly, if more comprehensive data sets are available for some missingcountriesandsomeaspectsthathavenotyetbeenintegratedintoour study (such as data on domestic violence or street crime), the validity of the HISIwillcontinuouslyincrease.
44
5.
References
Acharya,Amitav2008:Humansecurity.In:Baylis,John/Smith,Steve/Owens, Patricia (Eds.): The Globalization of World Politics. An introduction to internationalrelations.4th.ed.,Oxford/NewYork:490505. Alkire,Sabina2004:AVitalCorethatMustBeTreatedwiththeSameGravitas asTraditionalSecurityThreats,in:SecurityDialogue,35(3):359360. Amarasuriya, Harini/Gndz, Canan/Mayer, Markus 2009: Rethinking the nexus between youth, unemployment and conflict Perspectives from Sri Lanka. Strengthening the Economic Dimensions of Peacebuilding. CaseStudiesSeries,London. Anand,PrathivadiBhayankaram/Gasper,Des2007:WellbeingandSustainabil ity: Rights, Responsibilities and Priorities. Special Issue on Human Security,in:JournalofInternationalDevelopment,19(4):449456. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters 2007: Annual Disaster StatisticalReview2006.Thenumbersandtrends.CentreforResearchon theEpistemologyofDisasters,Brussels. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters 2008: Annual Disaster StatisticalReview2007.Thenumbersandtrends.CentreforResearchon theEpistemologyofDisasters,Brussels. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters 2009: Annual Disaster StatisticalReview2008.Thenumbersandtrends.CentreforResearchon theEpistemologyofDisasters,Brussels. AtanassovaCornelis,Elena2006:DefiningandImplementingHumanSecurity: The Case of Japan, in: Debiel, Tobias/Werthes, Sascha (Eds.) 2006a: Human Security on Foreign Policy Agendas. Changes, Concepts and Cases,(INEFReport80),Duisburg:2138. Atenzia, Maria Ela L. (Ed.) 2009: Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines. An Explanatory Study in Selected Conflict Areas. Third WorldStudiesCenterattheUniversityofthePhilippines,QuezonCity. Axworthy, Lloyd 2004: A New Scientific Field and Policy Lens, in: Security Dialogue,35(3):348349. Baylis, John/Smith, Steve/ Owens, Patricia 2008: The Globalization of World Politics.Anintroductiontointernationalrelations.4th.ed.,Oxford/New York. Bellamy, Alex J. 2009: Responsibility to Protect. Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities,Cambridge. Bertelsmann Foundation 2008: Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2008, Gtersloh. Booth, Ken (Ed.) 2005: Critical Security Studies And World Politics, Boulder/ London.
45
Bosold,David/Werthes,Sascha2005:HumanSecurityinPractice:Canadianand Japanese Experiences, in: Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft/ InternationalPoliticsandSociety,2005(1):84101. Bger, Christian 2008: Human Security Whats the use of it? On boundary objects and the constitution of new global spaces. Paper prepared for presentation at the 49th Annual Conference of the International Studies Association,SanFrancisco,CA,USA,March2008. Buzan,Barry2004:AReductionist,IdealisticNotionthatAddsLittleAnalytical Value,in:SecurityDialogue,35(3):369370. Canagarajah, Sudharshan/Sethuraman, S.V. 2001: Social Protection and InformalSectorinDevelopingCountries:ChallengesandOpportunities. (The World Bank Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, No. 0131), Washington. Chandler, David 2008a: Review Essay: Human Security: The Dog That Didnt Bark,in:SecurityDialogue,39(4):427438. Chandler, David 2008b: Human Security II: Waiting for the Tail to Wag the Dog A Rejoinder to Ambrosetti, Owen and Wibben, in: Security Dialogue,39(4):463469. Chandler, David 2007: The securitydevelopment nexus and the rise of anti foreign policy, in: Journal of International Relations and Development, 10(4):362386. Collins,Alan(Ed.)2007:ContemporarySecurityStudies.Oxford. CommissiononHumanSecurity(CHS)2003:HumanSecurityNow.Protecting andempoweringpeople,NewYork. Copeland,Daryl2009:GuerrillaDiplomacy.RethinkingInternationalRelations, Boulder. Council of European Union 2008: Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy Providing Security in a Changing World. S407/08,Brussels. Council of the European Union 2003: A Secure Report in a Better World. EuropeanSecurityStrategy,Brussels. Debiel, Tobias/Franke, Volker2008: Auf tnernen Fen? Zur normativen Begrndbarkeit menschlicher Sicherheit In: Ulbert, Cornelia/Werthes, Sascha(Hg.)2008:MenschlicheSicherheitGlobaleHerausforderungen undregionalePerspektiven.EINEWELTseriesNo.21,BadenBaden:66 77. Dehrez,Dustin2009:TheScarcityofLandinSomalia.NaturalRecoursesand their Role in the Somali Conflict. (Bonn International Center for Conversion,OccasionalPaperIII),Bonn. Duffield, Mark 2010: The Liberal Way of Development and the Development Security Impasse: Exploring the Global LifeChance Divide in: Security Dialogue, 41 (1) (Special Issue on the SecurityDevelopment Nexus Revisited):5376.
46
Evans,Gareth2008:TheResponsibilitytoProtect.EndingMassAtrocityCrimes OnceandForAll,Washington,D.C. Evans,Paul2004:AConceptStillontheMargins,butEvolvingfromItsAsian Roots,in:SecurityDialogue,35(3):363364. FAO2008:TheStateofFoodInsecurityintheWorld.Highfoodpricesandfood securitythreatsandopportunities,Rome. Ferdowsi, Mir A. (Hg.) 2009: Internationale Politik als berlebensstrategie. Mnchen. Fielden,Alexandra2008:IgnoredDisplacedPersons:theplightofIDPsinurban areas. New Issues in Refugee Research. (UNHCR: Policy and Develop mentEvaluationServiceResearchPaperNo.161),Geneva. FuentesJulio,ClaudiaF./Brauch,Gnter2009:TheHumanSecurityNetwork:A GlobalNorthSouthCoalition,in:Brauch,HansGnter,etal.(Hg.)2009: Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts (Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, Vol. 4). Berlin, New York, Heidelberg:10131021. Glasius, Marlies/Kaldor, Mary 2005: Individuals First: A Human Security Strategy for the European Union, in: Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft/InternationalPoliticsandSociety,2005(1):6282. vonGrebmer,Klausetal.:GlobalHungerIndex2008.TheChallengeofHunger 2008.Bonn,WashingtonD.C.,Dublin. WHO Department of Human Resources for Health (Ed.)2008:Global Atlas of theHealthWorkforce2008,availableonline:http://www.who.int/pmnch/ topics/health_systems/globalatlas/en/index.html(12.8.2009) Hampson,FenOsler2004:AConceptinNeedofaGlobalPolicyResponse,in: SecurityDialogue,35(3):349350. Hastings, David A. 2009: From Human Development to Human Security: A PrototypeHumanSecurityIndex.(UNESCAPWorkingPaperWP/09/03), Bangkok. Hettne,Bjrn2010:DevelopmentandSecurity:OriginsandFuture,in:Security Dialogue, 41 (1) (Special Issue on the SecurityDevelopment Nexus Revisited):3152. Hubert,Don2004:AnIdeathatWorksinPractice,in:SecurityDialogue,35(3), 351352. HumanSecurityStudyGroup2007:AEuropeanWayofSecurity.TheMadrid Report of the Human Security Study Group. (Madrid, 8th November, 2007). http://www.lse.ac.uk/depts/global/studygroup/studygroup.htm, (16.11.2007). International Crisis Group 2008: Burma/Myanmar after Nargis: Time to Normalise Aid Relations. (International Crisis Group Asia Report No. 161).
47
InternationalCommissiononInterventionandStateSovereignty(ICISS),2001: TheResponsibilitytoProtect.ReportoftheInternationalCommissionon InterventionandStateSovereignty,Ottawa. International Labour Organization 2009: Global Employment Trends. InternationalLabourOfficeUpdateMay2009,Geneva. Jones, Bruce/Pascual, Carlos/Stedman, Stephen John 2009: Power & Responsibility.BuildingInternationalOrderinanAreaofTransnational Threats.Washington,D.C.
48
Kaldor, Mary 2007: Human Security. Reflections on Globalization and Intervention.Cambridge/Malden. Keohane, Robert O./Nye, Joseph S. 1977: Power and Interdependence. World PoliticsinTransition.Boston/Toronto. Kerr,Pauline2007:HumanSecurity,in:Collins,Alan(Ed.),2007:Contemporary SecurityStudies.Oxford:91108. King, Gary/Murray, Christopher J. L. 2001: Rethinking Human Security, in: PoliticalScienceQuarterly,116(4):585610. Krause, Keith 2004: The Key to a Powerful Agenda, if Properly Delimited, in: SecurityDialogue,35(3):367368. Liotta, P.H. 2005: Through the Looking Glass: Creeping Vulnerability and the ReorderingofSecurity,in:SecurityDialogue,36(1):4970. MacFarlane, S. Neil 2004: A Useful Concept that Risks Losing Its Political Salience,in:SecurityDialogue,35(3):368369. MacFarlane,S.Neil/Khong,YuenFoong2006:HumanSecurityandtheUN.A CriticalHistory.Bloomington. Mack,Andrew2004:ASignifierofSharedValues,in:SecurityDialogue,35(3): 366367. Martin, Mary/Owen, Taylor 2010: The second generation of human security: lessonsfromtheUNandEUexperience,in:InternationalAffairs,86(1): 211224. McDonald, Matt 2002: Human Security and the Construction of Security, in: GlobalSociety,16(3):277295. McRae,Rob/Hubert,Don(Eds.)2001:HumanSecurityandtheNewDiplomacy. ProtectingPeople,PromotingPeace.Montreal/Kingston. HumanSecurityReportProject(Ed.)2008:MiniAtlasofHumanSecurity2008, Washington,D.C. Newman, Edward 2004: A Normatively Attractive but Analytically Weak Concept,in:SecurityDialogue,35(3):358359. Newman, Edward 2010: Critical human security studies, in: Review of InternationalStudies,36(1):7794. OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment2008:Handbookon Constructing Composite Indicators Methodology and User Guide.
Available online: (22.8.2010):8386.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/42/42495745.pdf
Owen, Taylor 2004: Human Security Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a ThresholdBased Definition, in:SecurityDialogue,35(3):373387. Pape, Matthias 1997: Humanitre Intervention. Zur Bedeutung der MenschenrechteindenVereintenNationen,BadenBaden. Paris, Roland 2004: Still an Inscrutable Concept, in: Security Dialogue, 35 (3): 370371. Paris, Roland 2001. Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?, in: InternationalSecurity,26(2):87102. Roberts, David 2008: Human Insecurity. Global Structures of Violence. London/NewYork. Sira, IngerHelene/Grns,Jonas 2010: The promotion of human security in EU securitypolicies.(PRIO:INEXPolicyBrief7/2010),Oslo. Stern,Maria/jendal,Joakim2010:MappingtheSecurityDevelopmentNexus: Conflict, Complexity, Cacophony, Convergence?, in: Security Dialogue, 41(1)(SpecialIssueontheSecurityDevelopmentNexusRevisited):530. Study Group on Europes Security Capabilities (SGESC) 2004: A Human SecurityDoctrineforEurope.TheBarcelonaReportoftheStudyGroup onEuropesSecurityCapabilities. Suhrke,Astri2004:AStalledInitiative,in:SecurityDialogue,35(3):365. Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou/Chenoy, Anuradha M. 2007: Human Security. Conceptsandimplications.London/NewYork. UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly2008:Letterdated13February2008fromthe Permanent Representatives of Japan and Mexico to the United Nations addressedtothePresidentoftheGeneralAssembly,(A/62/695). Uvin,Peter2004:AFieldofOverlapsandInteractions,in:SecurityDialogue,35 (3):352353. UNAIDS2008:ReportontheglobalAIDSepidemic2008. UNDP1994:HumanDevelopmentReport1994,NewYork/Oxford. UNICEF2007:TheStateoftheWorldsChildrenReport2007,NewYork. United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security 2009: Human Security in TheoryandPractice.ApplicationoftheHumanSecurityConceptandthe UnitedNationsTrustFundforHumanSecurity,NewYork. United Nations University, Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNI CRIS)/ UNDP 2009: Delivering Human Security through MultiLevel Governance,Bruges/Brussels. WHO2009:InfectiousDiseases,availableonline: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/(11.8.2009)
49
Werthes,Sascha2008:MenschlicheSicherheitEinzukunfsfhigesKonzept.In: Ulbert, Cornelia/Werthes, Sascha (Hg.) 2008: Menschliche Sicherheit Globale Herausforderungen und regionale Perspektiven. EINE WELT seriesNo.21,BadenBaden:191204. Werthes, Sascha/Bosold, David 2006: Caught between Pretension and Substantiveness Ambiguities of Human Security as a Political Leitmotif, in: Debiel, Tobias/Werthes, Sascha (Hg.), 2006a: Human Security on Foreign Policy Agendas. Changes, Concepts and Cases, (INEFReport,80/2006),Duisburg:2138.
50
Werthes,Sascha/Debiel,Tobias2009:MenschlicheSicherheit.In:Ferdowsi,Mir (Hg.):InternationalePolitikalsberlebensstrategie.Mnchen:155178. Werthes,Sascha/Debiel,Tobias2009:TheHorizontalandVerticalExtensionof the International Security Agenda: How does the Human Security Approach fit in?, in: Brauch, Hans Gnter, et al. (Eds.): Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts (Hexagon Series on Human and EnvironmentalSecurityandPeace,Vol.4).Berlin,NewYork,Heidelberg: 10131021. Werthes, Sascha/Debiel, Tobias 2006: Human Security on Foreign Policy Agendas: Introduction to Changes, Concepts and Cases, in: Debiel, Tobias/Werthes,Sascha(Eds.)2006a:HumanSecurityonForeignPolicy Agendas. Changes, Concepts and Cases, (INEF Report, 80/2006), Duisburg:720. Wet, Erika de 2004: The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council.Oxford/Portland. Wood, Reed/Gibney, Mark 2008: The Political Terror Scale (PTS): A Re introductionandaComparisontoCIRI,in:HumanRightsQuarterly32 (2):367400.
6.
Annex1:CountriesinAlphabeticalOrder andScoreforallDimensions
Economic 84,25 40,16 47,9 60,95 19,77 30,38 45,24 7,12 5,93 45,42 13,17 24,3 70,82 20,32 34,44 7,69 37,6 66,9 57,81 52,17 41,64 30,07 31,15 1,33 26,91 71,73 83,29 66,93 61,53 6,16 53,53 79,51 Food 79,17 7,29 3,13 75,19 51,52 3,13 21,81 0 0 18,97 7,07 16,67 71,62 0 0 0 5,21 39,58 37,5 26,99 1,04 36,24 7,7 0 0 45,08 89,58 60,2 39,46 0 25,25 70,08 Health 51,71 7,31 11,59 87,43 6,53 4,66 8,23 1,23 1,16 23,49 12,76 5,77 25,49 5,86 2,13 1,22 11,87 48,02 22,05 23,09 3,07 35,93 10,25 4,56 7,02 63,22 75,09 25,94 38,84 1,58 17,35 45,42 Environ ment 41,05 2,3 5,75 26,87 100 3,85 2,75 0,28 0 10,5 5,49 0 22,42 0,25 1,75 0 92,61 31,79 16,75 17,96 1,5 14,25 10,84 0 0,5 28,88 24,95 26,75 20,14 0,13 0 25,8 Pers Comm 100 21,38 31,45 40,47 0,34 12,52 22,37 0 12,5 73,52 18,82 12,57 37,57 12,64 19,1 6,25 12,56 12,53 50 18,8 39,42 12,52 37,51 0 19,03 25,03 66,52 31,98 25,46 6,26 12,55 82,6 16,25 16,5 40,5 52,75 53,45 6,67 18 39,25 55 27,75 29,1 14 12 27 59,17 1,5 25,59 71,35 17,04 41,38 8,13 6,75 66,82 Political 54,63 13 45,67 49,75 Human (In)Security 85,97 19,14 30,44 71,29 44,74 14,98 29,67 3,51 5,51 49,96 14,39 17,77 62,63 9,81 24,4 3,49 40,14 53,12 44,34 35,18 21,07 29,51 20,74 1,48 14,59 52,41 79,51 55,36 49,99 4,35 26,51 71,71 Rank 3 122 89 10 59 134 93 173 166 48 137 125 18 151 112 174 69 45 61 75 117 96 81 180 135 46 5 36 47 170 106 9
Country Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Antiguaand Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas,The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosniaand Herzegov. Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria BurkinaFaso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada CapeVerde CentralAfrican Republic
51
Country Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo,Dem. Rep.
Economic 71,59 25,32 49,04 40,89 75,26 94,96 60,67 28,26 71,69 17,91 25 11,5 9,83 7,14 60,98 32,85 45,48 44,05 51,64 49,22 21,38 79,4 17,05 77,61 50,01 7,7 8,82 25,68 71,64 51,04 8,12 57,43 11,05 31,35 55,96
Food 74,37 0 12,82 13,83 75 81,25 33,24 4,17 31,41 0 3,13 0 0 0 58,96 0 22,85 20,96 5,21 16,95 37,5 90,63 0 82,48 0 0 0 11,46 47,57 11,65 0 24,27 0 39,39 36,55
Health 52,99 2,76 8,34 8,56 42,62 50,48 45,92 3,42 45,34 1,84 1,64 1,94 0,68 1,06 50,95 5,11 11,91 8,78 11,23 9,47 38,32 19,69 3,62 45,53 4,14 0,6 0,85 42,62 58,48 6,48 0,85 51,5 1,42 4,85 12,71
Environ ment 36,22 5,38 39,93 15,95 40 30,81 27,3 15,77 23,76 0,5 15,45 0 0,25 0 60,25 0 7,01 11,02 9 7,62 26,5 83,75 1,25 60,14 20,5 0 0,02 19,25 15,62 2 0 28,22 0,6 0 9,02
Pers Comm 51,17 6,29 31,32 83,16 25,11 74,8 22,64 0,06 58,74 13,18 25,42 12,51 6,33 0 25,78 1,03 25,03 25,06 31,31 27 25,42 61,04 12,63 38,14 19,99 0 12,5 25,05 25,77 59,45 0 18,92 18,76 0 32,19
Political 50,63 10,75 87,75 62,75 35 65,63 30,38 12,55 43,25 9,25 79,17 8,75 12 16,75 35,75
Human (In)Security 70,52 10,57 47,96 47,12 61,32 83,28 46,07 13,44 57,38 8,93 31,35 7,26 6,09 5,22 61,25 9,79
Rank 11 149 53 55 21 4 58 139 31 156 84 160 164 167 22 152 95 97 77 94 60 2 148 6 102 176 157 92 44 80 175 64 128 123 76
52
Congo,Rep. CostaRica CtedIvoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus CzechRepublic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt,Arab Rep. ElSalvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia,The Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala
29 27,75 55,13 31,4 64,63 88,75 16 68,88 38 6 17,67 18,38 36,38
29,57 28,8 34,22 29,65 44,73 88,58 10,58 78,02 27,76 2,99 8,34 29,81 53,46 32,8
7,25 18,75 47,5
3,4 41,66 16,6 18,98
21,32
35,11
Country Guinea GuineaBissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran,Islamic Rep. Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea,Dem. Rep. Korea,Rep. Kuwait KyrgyzRepublic LaoPDR Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia, FYR Madagascar Malawi Malaysia
Economic 76,51 92,25 50,73 71,35 54,81 14,92 5,74 59,08 50,48 40,31 61,82 4,55 12,6 11,02 41,45 8,88 47,67 35,17 66,26 42,59 90 16,5 25,41 58,9 66,29 23,72 38,87 72,9 91,22 30,3 17,7 0 32,33 74,28 75,82 28,12
Food 40,69 48,55 14,99 71,88 20,01 0 0 65,56 42,77 10,42 14,58 0 0 0 5,65 0 3,13 3,13 49,59 15,03 52,71 0 9,38 2,08 54,17 0 3,13 32,42 63,92 4,17 0 0 2,08 77,56 47,6 7,29
Health 45,62 63,23 19,89 28,61 10,6 2,53 0,39 13,39 13,73 15,13 18,54 1,45 0,99 1,89 7,42 0,26 5,71 10,83 71,37 18,82 22 1,05 3,01 13,22 33,96 3,76 8,86 56,46 100 8,47 2,07 1 3,05 32,77 87,82 6,74
Environ ment 27,88 30,34 42,7 38,75 24,38 0,01 0 24,25 17,58 0,19 11,77 0 0 0 6,4 0,11 4,25 1,99 36,57 25,72 0 0 0 4,72 31,91 5,75 0 22,09 26,03 0 0 0 2,75 43,11 16,35 1,84
Pers Comm 38,11 6,75 13,16 33,36 25,14 12,69 0,01 37,51 25,05 38,17 100 6,25 0,4 12,5 25,2 0 25,24 18,96 37,64 0,4 37,52 12,52 12,7 25,29 19,64 6,42 62,15 25,01 50,45 25,24 0,09 0 21,24 12,51 19,1 18,77
Political 50,75 18,17 19,88 22,57 61,5 12,75 0,75 60 43,5 85,17 74,69 6 44,42 14,21 17,44 3,25 43 52,67 45,63
Human (In)Security 58,5 54,26 33,77 55,78 41,11 8,98 1,44 54,37 40,42 39,63 58,89 3,82 12,22 8,29 21,67 2,62 27 25,69 64,26 25,76
Rank 28 40 78 35 65 155 181 39 68 70 27 171 145 158 115 178 104 108 16 107 17 147 133 91 34 142 90 49 7 101 162 182 130 38 30 114
53
98,25 24,5 21,32 38,5 65 21,5 32 24,75 19,88 65,75 12 1,5 14,13 20,5 27,5 44,75
62,88 11,42 15,03 29,87 56,71 12,8 30,34 48,89 73,56 28,03 6,67 0,52 15,82 54,56 57,38 22,5
Country Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico
Economic 46,72 65,38 15,97 64,5 29,69 35,28 57,72 54,15 30,45 57,13 75,11 82,59 43,07 75,24 5,54 13,42 59,35 79,52 59,11 0,07 25,32 61,66 35,23 51,21 42,97 54,13 20,99 17,31 0 26,72 34,41 68,64 43,84 67,12 37,95
Food 34,75 40,88 0 37,85 18,12 4,17 3,13 31,98 4,17 9,38 59,82 48,96 40,63 58,46 0 0 25,95 71,56 35,73 0
Health 12,19 60,76 0,66 39,41 6,29 7,52 5,31 33,36 6,86 15,64 95,24 23,33 59,55 21,69 1,28 1,23 10,51 62,42 45,54 0,68 6,52
Environ ment 14,5 23,81 0,01 29 1,5 7,34 8,01 19,8
Pers Comm 12,53 12,74 6,26 25,27 12,54 25,11 19,5 19,33 27,54
Political 31,63 18,75
Human (In)Security 31,88 46,53 5,75
Rank 83 57 165 54 119 99 109 71 116 79 12 13 66 37 179 169 98 15 42 183 140 41 126 88 111 50 154 153 144 121 86 19 138 87 82
31,94 29 58,07 25,69 30,42 15 41,13 35,25 97,19 17,75 51,63 4 6,5 16,25 38,5 53,88 0,75 21,34 77,44 10,92 30,25 23,13 57,5 9,5 14 32,75 24,5 63,75 45
47,71 20,33 28,77 24,98 39,56 21,1 33,43 69,51 68,88 41 55,23 2,26 4,43 28,8 67,34 53,65 0,32 13,36 53,76 17,73 30,46 24,5 48,65 9,45 9,63 12,64 19,22 30,95 62,25 14,22 30,88
54
Moldova Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Netherlands NewZealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Samoa SoTomand Princip SaudiArabia
11,42 41,72 23,81 22,07 23,53 0 0 19,03 38,48 30,75 0,01 0 13,61 10,57 16,75 15,4 32,73 0,02 0,5 0 10,13 4,01 28,35 3 22,54 0,01
25,08 25,02 53,28 12,83 33,38 0 0 6,52 31,29 31,34 0 0,01 37,64 0,05 25,01 6,46 37,88 12,54 12,5 12,54 18,9 38,68 30,69 0,01 0,09 31,27
38,42 21,94 11,71 16,79 41,76 0 0 10,42 2,08 2,08 60,8 0 10,86 13,54
28,12 6 10,6 12,34 8,47 2,1 1,68 4,71 9,49 4,97 63,99 9,76 22,35 4,15
65,88
31,98
Country Senegal Serbia Seychelles SierraLeone Singapore SlovakRepublic Slovenia SolomonIslands Somalia SouthAfrica Spain SriLanka St.KittsandNevis St.Lucia St.Vincentandthe Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland SyrianArabRepublic Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand TimorLeste Togo Tonga Trinidadand Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine
Economic 63,63 30,72 17,56 77,2 10,47 13,72 8,37 64,04 90 33,85 10,99 44,12 26,1 31,39 32,64 73,35 36,53 44,18 7,15 4,43 53,77 67,15 68,59 38,38 61,21 78,6 45,11 18,65 31,2 33,79 51,96 67,65 39,49
Food 40,4 1,04 13,13 75,16 4,17 0 0 27,4 72,92 11,46 0 47,85 25,25 11,11 7,07 60,35 13,92 21,91 0 0 9,38 48,48 54,7 22,98 69,7 60,89
Health 47,63 3,86 8,83 56,58 0,21 2,04 0,88 31,93 48,3 21,65 1,51 7,27 5,15 4,95 5,73 48,23 11,19 59,04 0,34 1,4 10,54 17,54 79,09 8,74 49,75 45,94 4,14
Environ ment 23,97 2,25 0 34,08 0 0 0 24,5 87 12,05 0 18,57 1,25 0 0 24,42 10,41 23,11 0 0 19,46 60,25 28,07 51,24 24,25 34,49 1 3,5 5,25 3,75 0 33,17 3,84
Pers Comm 25,74 42,91 0,43 22,18 6,27 12,55 0,02 0,07 100 31,26 18,75 70,41 0,28 13,93 18,55 78,92 12,59 25,04 0 12,5 31,86 25,08 18,81 37,52 62,91 27,73 0,22 12,67 25,16 39,24 18,85 72,49 25,34
Political 29,5 11,75 17,75 28,88 39,5 6,5 8,67 29
Human (In)Security 48,32 19,36 12,08 61,54 12,68 7,28 3,75 37,03 100
Rank 52 120 146 20 143 159 172 73 1 85 150 32 136 132 129 8 118 56 177 168 67 43 33 63 25 29 124 127 105 103 72 14 113
55
39 19 84
31,24 10,52 56,97 14,57 15,41 16,07
66 13 50,25 6,5 6,5 69,82 37,75 22,5 47,25 21,88 30 24 18,07 54,05 41,38 82,75 43 34,63
73,51 20,43 46,78 2,93 5,2 40,77 53,63 56,87 43,14 60,63 58,11 18,7 16,73 26,77 27,59 39,08 68,23 22,61
12,78 3,13 3,13 13,95 32,42 0
14,26 9,15 10,56 19,25 77,32 4,73
Country UnitedArab Emirates United Kingdom UnitedStates Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu
Economic 20,67 7,54 2,65 21,18 57,06 49,74 31,56 54
Food 13,54 0 1,04 4,17 15,78 9,09 13,76 31,41 14,71
Health 4,63 1,35 1,79 4,57 9,64 38,99 8,75 10,1 14,32 25,03 92,32 40,15
Environ ment 0,75 0,03 12,71 0 4,04 0 0,03 13,35 0 22,32 22,9 18,96
Pers Comm 12,54 12,5 25,01 0,04 25,16 0 31,4 20,92 100 39,54 18,78 39,84
Political 22,25 7,75 19 4,17 61,35
Human (In)Security 15,57 6,1 13,02 7,14 36,21 24,56
Rank 131 163 141 161 74 110 100 62 51 26 23 24
56
Venezuela,RB Vietnam WestBankand Gaza Yemen,Rep. Zambia Zimbabwe
48,67 78,09 63,44 54,5 27,75 72
28,08 43,5 48,34 59,33 61,04 60,79
65,41 68,25 65
76,67 61,68 54,54
7.
Annex2:CountriesRanked
Economic
90 79,4 84,25 94,96 83,29 77,61 91,22 73,35 79,51 60,95 71,59 75,11 82,59 67,65 79,52 66,26 90 70,82 68,64 77,2 75,26 60,98 68,25 65 61,21 65,41 61,82 76,51 78,6 75,82 71,69 44,12 68,59
Country
Somalia Eritrea Afghanistan Congo,Dem. Rep. Burundi Ethiopia Liberia Sudan CentralAfrican Republic Angola Chad Mozambique Myanmar Uganda Niger Kenya Korea,Dem. Rep. Bangladesh Rwanda SierraLeone Comoros Djibouti Zambia Zimbabwe TimorLeste Yemen,Rep. Iraq Guinea Togo Malawi CtedIvoire SriLanka Tanzania
Food
72,92 90,63 79,17 81,25 89,58 82,48 63,92 60,35 70,08 75,19 74,37 59,82 48,96 32,42 71,56 49,59 52,71 71,62 60,8 75,16 75 58,96 61,68 54,54 69,7 76,67 14,58 40,69 60,89 47,6 31,41 47,85 54,7
Health
48,3 19,69 51,71 50,48 75,09 45,53 100 48,23 45,42 87,43 52,99 95,24 23,33 77,32 62,42 71,37 22 25,49 63,99 56,58 42,62 50,95 92,32 40,15 49,75 25,03 18,54 45,62 45,94 87,82 45,34 7,27 79,09
Environ ment
87 83,75 41,05 30,81 24,95 60,14 26,03 24,42 25,8 26,87 36,22 41,72 23,81 33,17 38,48 36,57 0 22,42 28,35 34,08 40 60,25 22,9 18,96 24,25 22,32 11,77 27,88 34,49 16,35 23,76 18,57 28,07
Pers Human Political Comm (In)Security

100 61,04 100 74,8 66,52 38,14 50,45 78,92 82,6 40,47 51,17 25,02 53,28 72,49 31,29 37,64 37,52 37,57 30,69 22,18 25,11 25,78 18,78 39,84 62,91 39,54 100 38,11 27,73 19,1 58,74 70,41 18,81 88,75 54,63 65,63 40,5 68,88 19,88 66 39,25 49,75 50,63 35,25 97,19 43 38,5 45,63 98,25 71,35 45 28,88 35 35,75 27,75 72 21,88 54,5 74,69 50,75 30 27,5 43,25 84 22,5 100 88,58 85,97 83,28 79,51 78,02 73,56 73,51 71,71 71,29 70,52 69,51 68,88 68,23 67,34 64,26 62,88 62,63 62,25 61,54 61,32 61,25 61,04 60,79 60,63 59,33 58,89 58,5 58,11 57,38 57,38 56,97 56,87
Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
57
Country LaoPDR Haiti Cambodia Nepal Madagascar India
Economic 66,29 71,35 66,93 75,24 74,28 59,08 92,25 61,66 59,11 67,15 71,64 66,9 71,73 61,53 45,42 72,9 54,13
Food 54,17 71,88 60,2 58,46 77,56 65,56 48,55 38,42 35,73 48,48 47,57 39,58 45,08 39,46 18,97 32,42 41,76 14,71
Health 33,96 28,61 25,94 21,69 32,77 13,39 63,23 28,12 45,54 17,54 58,48 48,02 63,22 38,84 23,49 56,46 8,47 14,32 47,63 8,34 39,41 8,56 59,04 60,76 45,92 6,53 38,32 22,05 10,1 8,74 51,5 10,6 59,55 10,54
Environ ment 31,91 38,75 26,75 23,53 43,11 24,25 30,34 13,61 30,75 60,25 15,62 31,79 28,88 20,14 10,5 22,09 32,73 0 23,97 39,93 29 15,95 23,11 23,81 27,3 100 26,5 16,75 13,35 51,24 28,22 24,38 22,07 19,46
Pers Comm 19,64 33,36 31,98 33,38 12,51 37,51 6,75 37,64 31,34 25,08 25,77 12,53 25,03 25,46 73,52 25,01 37,88 100 25,74 31,32 25,27 83,16 25,04 12,74 22,64 0,34 25,42 50 20,92 37,52 18,92 25,14 12,83 31,86
Political 65 22,57 52,75 51,63 20,5 60 18,17 77,44 53,88 37,75 36,38 55 16,5 53,45 66,82 24,75 57,5 63,44 29,5 87,75 31,94 62,75 50,25 18,75 30,38
Human (In)Security 56,71 55,78 55,36 55,23 54,56 54,37 54,26 53,76 53,65 53,63 53,46 53,12 52,41 49,99 49,96 48,89 48,65 48,34 48,32 47,96 47,71 47,12 46,78 46,53 46,07 44,74
Rank 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
58
GuineaBissau Pakistan Nigeria Tajikistan Gambia,The Benin BurkinaFaso Cameroon Azerbaijan Lesotho Philippines WestBankand Gaza Senegal China Mauritania Colombia Swaziland Mali Congo,Rep. Antiguaand Barbuda EquatorialGuinea Bhutan Vietnam Thailand Ghana Honduras Namibia SyrianArabRepublic
63,63 49,04 64,5 40,89 44,18 65,38 60,67 19,77 21,38 57,81 54 38,38 57,43 54,81 43,07 53,77
40,4 12,82 37,85 13,83 21,91 40,88 33,24 51,52 37,5 37,5 31,41 22,98 24,27 20,01 40,63 9,38
64,63 27,75 78,09 47,25 18,75 61,5 17,75 69,82
44,73 44,34 43,5 43,14 41,66 41,11 41 40,77
Country Indonesia Belize Iran,Islamic Rep. Mongolia Turkmenistan Solomon Islands Uzbekistan Bolivia Guatemala Egypt,Arab Rep. Guyana Morocco Georgia Brazil SaudiArabia Maldives Cuba SouthAfrica Russian Federation SoTomand Princip Paraguay Algeria Lebanon KyrgyzRepublic Gabon Armenia ElSalvador Dominican Republic Botswana Ecuador Nicaragua Mexico Venezuela,RB Libya
Economic 50,48 37,6 40,31 54,15 51,96 64,04 57,06 52,17 55,96 51,64 50,73 57,13 51,04 31,15 37,95 46,72 25 33,85 34,41 67,12 51,21 47,9 38,87 58,9 25,68 45,24 49,22 45,48 30,07 44,05 59,35 35,28 31,56 30,3
Food 42,77 5,21 10,42 31,98 13,95 27,4 15,78 26,99 36,55 5,21 14,99 9,38 11,65 7,7 13,54 34,75 3,13 11,46 2,08 10,86 11,71 3,13 3,13 2,08 11,46 21,81 16,95 22,85 36,24 20,96 25,95 4,17 13,76 4,17
Health 13,73 11,87 15,13 33,36 19,25 31,93 9,64 23,09 12,71 11,23 19,89 15,64 6,48 10,25 4,15 12,19 1,64 21,65 4,97 22,35 10,6 11,59 8,86 13,22 42,62 8,23 9,47 11,91 35,93 8,78 10,51 7,52 8,75 8,47
Environ ment 17,58 92,61 0,19 19,8 0 24,5 4,04 17,96 9,02 9 42,7 11,42 2 10,84 0,01 14,5 15,45 12,05 4,01 22,54 16,75 5,75 0 4,72 19,25 2,75 7,62 7,01 14,25 11,02 19,03 7,34 0,03 0
Pers Comm 25,05 12,56 38,17 19,33 18,85 0,07 25,16 18,8 32,19 31,31 13,16 25,08 59,45 37,51 31,27 12,53 25,42 31,26 38,68 0,09 25,01 31,45 62,15 25,29 25,05 22,37 27 25,03 12,52 25,06 6,52 25,11 31,4 25,24
Political 43,5
Human (In)Security 40,42 40,14
Rank 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
85,17 30,42 82,75 29 61,35 29,1 21,32 55,13 19,88 41,13
39,63 39,56 39,08 37,03 36,21 35,18 35,11 34,22 33,77 33,43 32,8
59
27 65,88 31,63 79,17 39 63,75
20,74 31,98 31,88 31,35 31,24 30,95 30,88
30,25 45,67 32 38,5 18,38 41,38 31,4 29 12 27,75 16,25 58,07 48,67 65,75
30,46 30,44 30,34 29,87 29,81 29,67 29,65 29,57 29,51 28,8 28,8 28,77 28,08 28,03
Country Fiji Turkey Jordan Tunisia CapeVerde Kiribati
Economic 50,01 33,79 47,67 31,2 53,53 42,59 35,17 57,72 49,74 42,97 34,44 39,49 28,12 41,45 30,45 41,64 36,53 29,69 30,72 26,72 40,16 31,35 45,11 24,3 35,23 18,65 11,05 32,64 32,33 20,67 31,39 25,41 30,38 26,91
Food 0 3,13 3,13 3,13 25,25 15,03 3,13 3,13 9,09 16,79 0 0 7,29 5,65 4,17 1,04 13,92 18,12 1,04 2,08 7,29 39,39
Health 4,14 10,56 5,71 9,15 17,35 18,82 10,83 5,31 38,99 12,34 2,13 4,73 6,74 7,42 6,86 3,07 11,19 6,29 3,86 9,49 7,31 4,85 4,14
Environ ment 20,5 3,75 4,25 5,25 0 25,72 1,99 8,01 0 15,4 1,75 3,84 1,84 6,4
Pers Comm 19,99 39,24 25,24 25,16 12,55 0,4 18,96 19,5 0 6,46 19,1 25,34 18,77 25,2 27,54
Political 38 41,38 43 54,05 18
Human (In)Security 27,76 27,59 27 26,77 26,51 25,76
Rank 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135
60
Kazakhstan Moldova Vanuatu Peru Belarus Ukraine Malaysia Jamaica Montenegro Bosniaand Herzegov. Suriname Mauritius Serbia Romania Albania Grenada Tonga Bahrain Panama Trinidadand Tobago Greece St.Vincentand the Macedonia, FYR UnitedArab Emirates St.Lucia Kuwait Argentina Bulgaria
52,67 25,69
25,69 24,98 24,56
23,13 59,17 34,63 44,75 17,44 15 14 13 29 11,75 24,5 13
24,5 24,4 22,61 22,5 21,67 21,1 21,07 20,43 20,33 19,36 19,22 19,14 18,98
1,5 10,41 1,5 2,25 10,13 2,3 0 1 0 10,57 3,5 0,6 0 2,75 0,75 0 0 3,85 0,5
39,42 12,59 12,54 42,91 18,9 21,38 0 0,22 12,57 0,05 12,67 18,76 18,55 21,24 12,54 13,93 12,7 12,52 19,03
24 25,59 10,92 18,07 47,5
18,7 17,77 17,73 16,73 16,6 16,07
16,67 21,94 12,78 0 7,07 2,08 13,54 11,11 9,38 3,13 0
5,77 6 14,26 1,42 5,73 3,05 4,63 4,95 3,01 4,66 7,02
14,13 22,25
15,82 15,57 15,41
21,32 17,04 16,25
15,03 14,98 14,59
Country St.Kittsand Nevis Bahamas,The Samoa CostaRica Oman UnitedStates Latvia Singapore Qatar Israel Seychelles Korea,Rep. Estonia Chile Spain Barbados Dominica Portugal Poland Hungary Croatia France Italy SlovakRepublic Cyprus Uruguay Lithuania United Kingdom CzechRepublic Malta Austria Denmark Switzerland NewZealand
Economic 26,1 13,17 43,84 28,26 25,32 2,65 23,72 10,47 0 12,6 17,56 16,5 17,05 25,32 10,99 20,32 32,85 17,31 20,99 14,92 17,91 8,82 11,02 13,72 11,5 21,18 17,7 7,54 9,83 15,97 5,93 7,14 4,43 13,42
Food 25,25 7,07 0 4,17
Health 5,15 12,76 9,76 3,42 6,52
Environ ment 1,25 5,49 3 15,77 0 12,71 5,75 0 0 0 0 0 1,25 5,38 0 0,25 0 0,5 0,02 0,01 0,5 0,02 0 0 0 0 0 0,03 0,25 0,01 0 0 0 0
Pers Comm 0,28 18,82 0,01 0,06 0,01 25,01 6,42 6,27 12,54 0,4 0,43 12,52 12,63 6,29 18,75 12,64 1,03 12,5 12,54 12,69 13,18 12,5 12,5 12,55 12,51 0,04 0,09 12,5 6,33 6,26 12,5 0 12,5 0
Political
Human (In)Security 14,57 14,39 14,22
Rank 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169
12,55 21,34 19 21,5 39,5 32,75 44,42 17,75 24,5 16 10,75 19
13,44 13,36 13,02 12,8 12,68 12,64 12,22 12,08 11,42 10,58 10,57 10,52 9,81 9,79
1,04 0 4,17 10,42 0 13,13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,79 3,76 0,21 4,71 0,99 8,83 1,05 3,62 2,76 1,51 5,86 5,11 1,68 2,1 2,53 1,84 0,85 1,89 2,04 1,94 4,57 2,07 1,35 0,68 0,66 1,16 1,06 1,4 1,23
61
14 9,5 12,75 9,25 17,67 14,21 6,5 8,75 4,17 12 7,75 12
9,63 9,45 8,98 8,93 8,34 8,29 7,28 7,26 7,14 6,67 6,1 6,09 5,75
6,75 16,75 6,5 6,5
5,51 5,22 5,2 4,43
Country Canada Ireland Slovenia Australia Belgium Germany
Economic 6,16 4,55 8,37 7,12 7,69 8,12 7,7 7,15 8,88 5,54 1,33 5,74 0 0,07
Food 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Health 1,58 1,45 0,88 1,23 1,22 0,85 0,6 0,34 0,26 1,28 4,56 0,39 1 0,68
Environ ment 0,13 0 0 0,28 0 0 0 0 0,11 0 0 0 0 0,01
Pers Comm 6,26 6,25 0,02 0 6,25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,01 0 0
Political 6,67 6 8,67 8,13 1,5 7,25 6 6,5 3,25 4
Human (In)Security 4,35 3,82 3,75 3,51 3,49 3,4 2,99 2,93 2,62 2,26 1,48
Rank 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183
62
Finland Sweden Japan Netherlands Brunei Darussalam Iceland Luxembourg Norway
0,75 1,5 0,75
1,44 0,52 0,32
RecentlyPublishedINEFReports
Meyns, Peter/Musamba, Charity (eds.): The Developmental State in Africa: Problems and Prospects. Institute for Development and Peace, University of DuisburgEssen (INEF Report,101/2010),68pp. Kurtenbach, Sabine/Seifert, Matthias: Development Cooperation after War and Violent ConflictDebatesandChallenges.Duisburg(INEFReport100/2010),44pp. Pech,Birgit:KorruptionundDemokratisierung.RekonstruktiondesForschungsstandesanden Schnittstellen zu Institutionenkonomik und politischer Transformationsforschung. Duisburg(INEFReport99/2009),36pp. Goede, Nils: Die Intervention der Vereinten Nationen in Somalia. Eine Analyse der EntscheidungsprozesseimSicherheitsratfrdieResolution794.Duisburg(INEFReport 98/2009),42pp. Wulf, Herbert (ed.): Still Under Construction. Regional Organisations Capacities for Conflict Prevention.Duisburg(INEFReport97/2009),56pp. Nuscheler, Franz: Good Governance. Ein universelles Leitbild von Staatlichkeit und Entwicklung?.Duisburg(INEFReport96/2008),68pp. Siebold,Thomas:ArmutsorientierteEntwicklungmithilfevonPRSPs?EineZwischenbilanzfr SubsaharaAfrika.Duisburg(INEFReport95/2008),63pp. Bliss, Frank/Neumann, Stefan: Participation in International Development Discourse and Practice:StateoftheArtandChallenges.Duisburg(INEFReport94/2008),72pp. Nuscheler, Franz: Die umstrittene Wirksamkeit der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Duisburg (INEFReport93/2008),42pp. Hellmann, Gunther/Roos, Ulrich: Das deutsche Streben nach einem stndigen Sitz im UN Sicherheitsrat: Analyse eines Irrwegs und Skizzen eines Auswegs. Duisburg (INEF Report92/2007),62pp. Schaller, Susanne: The Democratic Legitimacy of Private Governance. An Analysis of the EthicalTradingInitiative.Duisburg(INEFReport91/2007),56pp.
SingleCopiescanbeorderedfrom: InstituteforDevelopmentandPeace,UniversityofDuisburgEssen, FacultyofSocialSciences,D47048Duisburg. Hardcopiescanbeorderedfor3.00Euro(Germany)or5.00Euro(Europe)each. Orderformsareavailableonourhomepage. AllINEFReportscanbedownloadedforfreefromourhomepage: http://inef.unidue.de
TheInstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF)
TheInstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF),whichwasfoundedin1990,isaninstituteof the University of DuisburgEssen (Faculty of Social Sciences) with a strong focus on policy related and policyrelevant research. It closely collaborates with the Development and Peace Foundation(SEF),Bonn,establishedin1986attheinitiativeofformerGermanchancellorand NobelpeaceprizewinnerWillyBrandt. INEFcombinesbasicresearchwithappliedandpolicyrelatedresearchinthefollowingareas: GlobalGovernanceandHumanSecurity,FragileStates,CrisisPreventionandCivilianConflict Management,Development,HumanRightsandCorporateSocialResponsibility. The specific approach of INEF, as the only German research institute to combine basic with appliedresearchinpeaceanddevelopmentresearch,isalsoreflectedintherangeofthirdparty funding bodies. INEF carries out research programs and systematically explores available internationalexpertiseandworldreports,oftenincooperationwithnationalandinternational partners. INEF also conducts smaller projects for NGOs and NGO networks. The institute is integratedinastrongandviableinternationalresearchnetwork. DirectorsandExecutiveBoard Director:Prof.Dr.TobiasDebiel ExecutiveDirector:Dr.CorneliaUlbert Members of the Executive Board: Prof. Dr. Tobias Debiel (spokesperson); Prof. Dr. Thomas Heberer(acting spokesperson); Prof. Dr. HeinzJrgen Axt; Prof.Dr. KarlRudolf Korte (Dean ofFacultyofSocialSciences);Dr.BrigitteHamm;Prof.Dr.ChristofHartmann;Prof.Dr.Claus Leggewie; Prof. Dr. Dirk Messner; Prof. Dr. Werner Pascha; Johannes Schaffeldt; Ursula Schrmann;Prof.PhD.KarenShire;Prof.Dr.HaraldWelzer;Prof.Dr.LotharZechlin;advisors: apl.Prof.i.R.MichaelBohnet;Prof.i.R.OthmarHaberl;Prof.i.R.Dr.PeterMeyns;Prof.em.Dr. FranzNuscheler. TheINEFReportseries INEFReportisaseriesthatappearsatirregularintervals.Itpublishesmajorfindingsfromthe institutes ongoing research projects as well as overview studies on academic and policy debates concerning global issues. INEFReports are primarily addressed to the research community and students of international relations, but also try to reach out to policymakers interestedinrelevantscholarlyresults.
InstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF) Lotharstr.53 D47057Duisburg Telefon+49(203)3794420 Fax+49(203)3794425 EMail:inefsek@inef.unidue.de Homepage:http://inef.unidue.de

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
INEFReport102/2011
ISSN09414967

Report 102

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 102

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Human Insecurity Worldwide

The Way to A Human (In)Security Index

Sascha Werthes/Corinne Heaven/Sven Vollnhals

Institute for Development and Peace

HumanSecurity:TheOriginalApproach, ConceptualChallenges,andPolitical Consequences

Thresholdofa humanitarian crisis

Levelof Human (In)Security

Sphere ofthe Sphereofthe Responsibilityto Responsibilityto Prevent React

Sphereofthe Responsibilityto Rebuild/Prevent

Foramoredetaileddescriptionpleasesee:http://www.humansecurityindex.org/?page_id=147. AregionalindexhasbeenrecentlypublishedbytheUniversityofthePhilippinesThirdWorld StudiesCenterthatexaminesthehumansecuritysituationinthePhilippines,seeAtenziaetal. 2009.

Theauthorsarewellawareofthefactthatsocialsafetynetsdonotexistineverycountryand thattheymaysometimesbesubstitutedtoavaryingextentbythefamilyorthecommunity. However,dataavailabilitydoesnotofferthepossibilitytomeasurethiskindofsocialsafety.

Table1:AssessingtheLevelofHuman(In)Security Level Human(In)Security Level Level ofHumanSecurity Score Definition

TheregionsareidentifiedaccordingtoUNSTATSidentificationnumbers.Fordetailssee http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm. Foracompleteoverviewonallworldmaps,pleaseseewww.humansecurity.de.

Food insecurity, measured by the percentage of population that is undernourishedandthenumberofchildrenunderfiveunderweightedforage isasevereproblemmainlyinAfricaandSouthAsia.EspeciallyinSubSahara

Africa Oceania Americas Asia Europe Total

Available online: (22.8.2010):8386.

Country Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo,Dem. Rep.

29 27,75 55,13 31,4 64,63 88,75 16 68,88 38 6 17,67 18,38 36,38

7,25 18,75 47,5

3,4 41,66 16,6 18,98

Country Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico

Environ ment 14,5 23,81 0,01 29 1,5 7,34 8,01 19,8

Political 31,63 18,75

Human (In)Security 31,88 46,53 5,75

Political 29,5 11,75 17,75 28,88 39,5 6,5 8,67 29

31,24 10,52 56,97 14,57 15,41 16,07

12,78 3,13 3,13 13,95 32,42 0

14,26 9,15 10,56 19,25 77,32 4,73

Country UnitedArab Emirates United Kingdom UnitedStates Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu

Economic 20,67 7,54 2,65 21,18 57,06 49,74 31,56 54

Food 13,54 0 1,04 4,17 15,78 9,09 13,76 31,41 14,71

Political 22,25 7,75 19 4,17 61,35

Human (In)Security 15,57 6,1 13,02 7,14 36,21 24,56

Rank 131 163 141 161 74 110 100 62 51 26 23 24

Venezuela,RB Vietnam WestBankand Gaza Yemen,Rep. Zambia Zimbabwe

48,67 78,09 63,44 54,5 27,75 72

28,08 43,5 48,34 59,33 61,04 60,79

76,67 61,68 54,54

Pers Human Political Comm (In)Security

Country LaoPDR Haiti Cambodia Nepal Madagascar India

64,63 27,75 78,09 47,25 18,75 61,5 17,75 69,82

44,73 44,34 43,5 43,14 41,66 41,11 41 40,77

Human (In)Security 40,42 40,14

Rank 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

85,17 30,42 82,75 29 61,35 29,1 21,32 55,13 19,88 41,13

27 65,88 31,63 79,17 39 63,75

20,74 31,98 31,88 31,35 31,24 30,95 30,88

Country Fiji Turkey Jordan Tunisia CapeVerde Kiribati

Political 38 41,38 43 54,05 18

Human (In)Security 27,76 27,59 27 26,77 26,51 25,76

25,69 24,98 24,56

23,13 59,17 34,63 44,75 17,44 15 14 13 29 11,75 24,5 13

24 25,59 10,92 18,07 47,5

18,7 17,77 17,73 16,73 16,6 16,07

16,67 21,94 12,78 0 7,07 2,08 13,54 11,11 9,38 3,13 0

15,82 15,57 15,41

21,32 17,04 16,25

15,03 14,98 14,59

Food 25,25 7,07 0 4,17

Health 5,15 12,76 9,76 3,42 6,52

Human (In)Security 14,57 14,39 14,22

12,55 21,34 19 21,5 39,5 32,75 44,42 17,75 24,5 16 10,75 19

1,04 0 4,17 10,42 0 13,13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0