S ince the end of the Cold War, the phrase "human security" increasingly has surfaced in scholarly literature, in the conversations of policy professionals and policy advocates, and occasionally in the popular media. The phrase itself suggests a departure from the esoteric jargon of the Cold War, preoccupied with state-centric issues of thermonuclear holocaust, strategic alliances, compellance and deterrence. But despite its increasing usage, the new concept rarely is defined for the lay reader and seems to carry a slippery range of alternative definitions. For some, the association of "human security" with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) either commends its value or undermines its validity, regardless of the content. For others, the phrase connotes an exciting-or troubling-consensus on security themes by a putative global intelligentsia. Policymakers in several countries have gone so far as to embrace the concept as a foundation for their national foreign policy, while US policymakers are at best ambivalent or, more commonly, skeptical.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dan Henk (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: