MIGRATION AND HUMAN SECURITY

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION: MEANING, CONCEPTS & TRENDS OF MIGRATION

1.1Understanding Migration
1.1.1 Defining Migration
The word migration is a holistic term which has different definitions. Different scholars and institutions
forward different definitions for it. According to international migration law (2019), Migration is the
movement of persons away from their place of usual residence, either across an international border or
within a State. IOM (2011, p. 62), defines the term migration as “a process of moving either across an
international border or within the state” which includes any kind of movement of people whatever its
length, composition and its causes.

On the other, hand Mohammed, (2016, p. 3) stated migration as “a movement of people or cluster of
persons from one geographical space to a different through crossing borders wish to settle for permanently
or for the temporary in another place apart from the place of origin.”

From this we can understand that migration is the flow of individuals from their residence to alternative
residence in their country or it's the way of crossing one’s own country’s border to travel and live abroad
for some time or forever, legally or illegally.

Migration is a difficult concept to define because it includes people who move for different reasons across
different spaces. A migrant can be a person who moves to another city or town within a nation; a refugee
who crosses an international border to escape religious or political persecution; a jobseeker who moves to
another country for better economic opportunities; a slave who is forcibly moved; or a person displaced by
war or natural disaster. Demographers lack a single, operational definition for migration because it occurs
under different conditions.

The causes of migration are related to the specific contexts in which they take place. First, the composition
of migration streams are characterized by structural forces such as the global economy. Second,
sociocultural differentials (gender, class, caste, etc.) have important implications for individual mobility.

Because migration occurs under different circumstances, the demographic implications for receiver
populations change accordingly. For example, when large numbers of rural residents migrate to cities,
infrastructure problems may arise in urban areas.

1
 1.1.2 Types of Migration: Emigration and Immigration
The history of humanity and development of human society is underpinned by migration (Philips, 2011).
Migration of people across administrative/political jurisdictions within a country, or across countries, has
been a crucial factor in changes in societies. For a better understanding of migration, it is necessary to
classify migration according to its types.
There are two major types of migration: a) internal migration, which takes place within a country; and b)
international migration that takes place across international boundaries (Bhende and Kanitkar, 2006). The
processes, causes and consequences of internal migration are very different from those in international
migration. The former is a response to the socioeconomic spatial situations within a country, while the
latter is related to international socioeconomic and political conditions, especially the immigration and
emigration laws and policies of these countries.
The relatively permanent movement of people across territorial boundaries is referred to as in-migration
and out-migration, or immigration and emigration when the boundaries crossed are international. The place
of in-migration or immigration is called the receiver population, and the place of out-migration or
emigration is called the sender population.
Internal migration: refers to a change of residence within national boundaries, such as between states,
provinces, cities, or municipalities. An internal migrant is someone who moves to a different administrative
territory.
International migration: refers to change of residence over national boundaries. An international migrant
is someone who moves to a different country. International migrants are further classified as legal
immigrants, illegal immigrants, and refugees. Legal immigrants are those who moved with the legal
permission of the receiver nation, illegal immigrants are those who moved without legal permission, and
refugees are those crossed an international boundary to escape persecution.

1.1.3 Migrants vs. Refugees

An Immigrant is an individual who leaves one’s country to settle in another, whereas refugees are
defined as persons, who move out of one’s country due to restriction or danger to their lives. Immigration
is considered a natural phenomenon in population ecology, whereas the refugee movement occurs only
under some kind of coercion or pressure.

As per the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), refugees are those who are
escaping armed conflict or torment. A refugee generally leaves their homelands due to crisis, natural
disasters or war-like situation. They usually enter a new country unintentionally, and without their personal
possessions.
2
In contrast, migrants might immigrate for various purposes. A few of them migrate to join their family
members or for financial purposes. Many move to a new country for study, work, or for starting a business.
Migrants are usually able to prepare themselves before moving to a new place. Most immigrate to escape
from conflict, drought, famine, or financial crisis.

Immigrant Refugee

Definition  Is someone from a foreign  They move out of fear or necessity.

country who relocates to live in  E.g. To flee persecution; or because
another country. their homes were destroyed in a natural
 They may or may not be disaster; or due to war, violence,
citizens. political opinion, human rights
violations; or due to their religion,
beliefs or political opinion

Legal Status  Are subject to the laws of their  Defined by United Nations
adopted country.

 They may only come if they

have work or a place to live.

Reason of Are usually driven by economic Refugees are forced to relocate for
relocation factors, or they want to be close reasons such as natural disasters, fear
to family. of persecution or suffered persecution
due to at least one of the following:
race, religion, nationality, membership
of a particular social group or political
opinion.

Resettlement Immigrants can usually find a From refugee camp to a third

home in their new country. country.
Usually, cannot return to one’s own
country.

3
 Reason for Move by choice and due to
Move promise of a better life.
The main reasons include better
economic conditions, education
and family reasons.
They still have a choice to
return to their own country at
any time.
History o The first wave
of immigrants took place when
people from Western Europe
moved to Americas, and settled
there.
o Now stricter government laws
are imposed on immigration, and
people can immigrate to a
country only after laborious
paperwork and documentation.
o Each country has its set rules
regarding allowing new
immigrants into the country.
o In 2005, Europe hosted the
largest number of immigrants,
mostly from Asia.
Legal Status  Immigrants can move to a
country after due Government
or embassy paperwork and have
to abide by the laws of that
country.
4
 Move out due to fear of persecution
caused by war, violence, political
instability, aggression or due to their
religion, beliefs, caste, or political
opinion.
 In most cases, it is not possible for
them to go back to their country.
⸎ The term "refugee" was completely
defined after the 1951 Geneva
Convention.
⸎ Now the term refugee is a well-
defined term and distinct from an
internally or nationally displaced
persons.
⸎ The people who fled from Europe
after World war II were termed
refugees, along with those from
Africa, following the civil wars,
from the middle east, Bangladesh
and many other nations.
⸎ The greatest source countries for
refugees are Afghanistan, Iraq,
Myanmar, Sudan, and the
Palestinian territories.
⸙ The protection of refugees is
governed by the refugee law and the
1967 Protocol relating to the Status
of Refugees.
⸙ Before resettlement refugees stay
in camps where they are provided
basic amenities and healthcare till
 they can return to their homeland
or resettle in a third country.

Resettlement  Move out of their own volition, Refugee camps are set up to
and have to explore their own provide aid to these individuals till
settlement options in the new they can return to their country.
country. In the event that they cannot,
resettlement options are provided in
a third country.

1.1.4 Benefits and Deficit of Migration

Advantages of Migration (for Host Country)

Following are a few advantages of Migration for host country:

Job vacancies can be filled: migration can have a number of benefits for the host country. It has the
potential to fill job vacancies and develop skills gaps within the workforce, improve business productivity,
and boost national productivity.

Increases economic growth: The economic benefits of migration to the host country of low-skilled laborer
often outweighs the risks and cost to the host. In some cases, it can even be said that immigrants are a vital
part of the cultural fabric of many countries.

Can benefit locations where the majority of the population is old: When an economy begins to stagnate,
fewer young people move into the area. This has a significant detrimental impact on services like healthcare
and education that rely on a stable population. One solution is for migrants to migrate from their country of
origin to the host country. As they are younger, they bring with them new ideas and skills that can help
invigorate the economy.

Additional sources of tax for the host country: Some countries are experiencing a demographic crisis as
the number of people in the country shrinks and the number of people able to work shrinks. However, this
population decline can be used to their advantage by accepting immigrants from other countries. The
pension gap can be filled by the contributions of new young workers and they also pay taxes.

New innovations and ideas: Researchers who have studied immigrants in the United States say that their
presence has resulted in a positive impact on society. They contribute to economic growth and make up for
some of the skills that the native-born population lacks. Immigrants are also thought to be bringing new
ideas and innovations, which is important since so many of today’s jobs require specialized knowledge.

5
Many companies instead of hiring American workers would prefer to hire foreign-born individuals because
they can be hired more quickly and offer more value than their local counterparts.

Favorable economic and cultural impact: In terms of economic development, migration has been shown
to have a long-term positive impact. This is because immigrants bring skills and knowledge that may not be
easily obtained or duplicated in the local population. In terms of cultural diversity, migrants contribute
much to their countries’ social fabric and identity as they integrate with other culture groups within their
host country.

Disadvantages of Migration (for Host Country)

Following are a few advantages of Migration for host country:

Depression of wages: One of the major disadvantages to migration can be too much competition for jobs.
In some cases, those who migrate may need to take on a lower paying job than they had in their homeland
to maintain their standard of living. Additionally, with more people migrating, there is an increased cost of
goods and services, causing wages to decrease. This is true also when immigrants have a higher education
level and are willing to work for less pay.

Companies may neglect employee benefit programs: With globalisation and economic pressure on
wages, more workers have been willing to move from their countries of origin. Yet, this has led to a decline
in worker productivity and development as companies can get away with paying “low” wages because they
are able to save money by using migrant workers.

Can lead to exploitation: Migration can be dangerous and can have a negative impact on the economy.
While some migrants are able to find a decent job and earn a living for themselves, others may end up
being exploited in the process. It is important for migrants to protect their rights because they may be taken
advantage of due to language barriers or by placing their trust in people who do not want them to succeed.

Strain on public services: Increased population can put pressure on public services. The more people there
are, the more towns and cities have to build as well as new residential areas, schools and hospitals to
accommodate them. This creates a strain on the government and its budget.

Displacement of jobs: The number of people immigrating into a country can have economic and social
implications. If unending numbers of people are migrating into an area, then it can have detrimental
consequences like the displacement of jobs, unemployment and limited access to resources. There are also
drawbacks as well such as increased rates of crimes, health risks and climate change.

Takes time to adapt to a new environment: Though it is possible to integrate and find acceptance within
a limited time frame, there are still difficulties that come from this movement. Some of these challenges
include language barriers, threats of terrorism and violence, health concerns, discrimination and racism.

6
Increased crime rates: Organized crime and people trafficking can be facilitated by migration of people.
The ease of movement can make it easy for organized criminals to transport drugs, weapons, and other
illicit goods across borders.

Advantages of Migration (for Country of Origin)

Following are a few advantages of Migration for country of origin:

Developing countries benefit from remittances: Every day, migrants send money to their family
members in developing countries. These remittances are an important part of the economy in such countries
and can be used for investment in infrastructure, healthcare, education and security.
Reduction of unemployment: Migrating can have a positive impact on the country of origin. It can
increase their economic stability, reduce unemployment, and improve their workforce’s productivity. In
addition to that, young migrants can be seen as a source of innovation and talent.
Migrants bring back skills, contacts and other useful tools: Migration not only leads to social and
economic benefits for host countries, but for countries of origin as well. Millions of migrants left their
home countries and settled in another country, mostly a Western one. They usually return with savings,
useful skills and contacts which help to drive economic growth, boost competitiveness and increase
innovation for their country of origin.
Disadvantages of Migration (for Country of Origin)

Following are a few disadvantages of Migration for country of origin:

Loss of financial and informational wealth: When countries are experiencing high levels of migration,
the young population of that country (country of origin) will not be able to provide their previous level of
economic contributions. This can result in a significant loss of wealth to the country as a whole.
Loss of skilled labour: One of the negative impacts that migration has is the loss of qualified human
resources in countries of origin. For example, when doctors migrate, there is a shortage of physicians in the
country they leave. With high levels of depression, unemployment, and other health risks, these people are
less likely to return to their home countries.
Negative effect on children: When people migrate, they usually leave family members behind. This can
lead to children growing up without a wider family circle that provides emotional and material support. The
social problems that migrants experience in their destination country could also have a negative impact on
the country of origin, leaving orphans or vulnerable children without parents.

1.1.5 Classifying and Analysing Migration

Migration can be classified in a number of ways based on criteria such as the way people migrate, time
span, the crossing of an international border, the voluntariness of migrants and others.

7
Cohen (1996) & King (2002) (as cited in King, 2012) classified migration as internal and international
based on whether the migrants are crossing the international boundaries or not. Internal migration is the
movement of people from rural to urban, urban to rural, interurban and inter rural in their homeland.
International migration is a cross border movement of the people and it is either emigration (which is the
departure of the person from homeland to another country to live permanently or for short period of time)
or immigration (i.e. is returning back to one’s origin with the aim of living there permanently or short
period of time).

These scholars also classified migration as temporal and permanent based on the time span of migration.
Temporal migration: is the movement of the people to somewhere to live for a limited time, not more than
10 years, which includes labor or economic migrants, who migrate to work abroad and return back to home.
Permanent migration: is the movement of the people to somewhere to live there permanently which
includes forced or refugee migrants, who migrate for permanent resident.

Furthermore, King, (2012) also tried to classify migration based on the legality status of migrants as
regular/legal and irregular/illegal migration. Regular migration: is a way in which people are going
somewhere lawfully through fulfilling the legal requirements of the receiving state to stay there
permanently or for a limited time. On the other hand, irregular migration: is the way in which migrants are
going somewhere illegally/unlawfully and are not fulfilling the legal requirements of the hosting states and
they cross the borders through illegal agents and smugglers. In most cases, this includes labor migrants
from developing states.

Lastly, another scholar Baggio (n.d.) classified migration based on causes and motives that have generated
it into voluntary and forced migration. Voluntary/Economic migration is the flow of people to economically
advance than the home and these migrants are going based on their permission to hoard wealth and return
to home. Whereas forced/ refugees’ migration is the movement of people to somewhere to get
accommodation due to their trouble in their country and these migrants are going out due to compelling
situations like civil war, natural disaster or political unrest (Baggio, n.d.). People who move from one country
to another as asylum seekers, refugees and internally displaced persons are considered as forced migrants, and they
have no other option than migrating to a different country due to the struggles they face in their home country.

Generally, migration can be classified as follows based on different criteria:

Based on direction of movement:

A. Rural to Rural migration C. Urban to Rural migration
B. Rural to Urban migration D. Urban to Urban migration
Based on spatial dimensions
A. Intra-district migration, i.e., migration within the district.
B. Inter-district migration, i.e., migration from one district to another within the state.
C. Inter-state migration, i.e., migration from one state to another.
8
Based on duration of migration
A. Permanent migration B. Temporary migration
Based on the motive/reasons for migration
A. Marriage migration C. Migration due to natural calamities
B. Labor migration

1.1.6 Globalization and Migration

The concept of globalization is complex and contested. David Held, a leading theorist of globalization, has
provided the following definition: ‘Globalization may be thought of as a process (or set of processes) which
embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, assessed in terms
of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact, generating transcontinental or interregional flows and
networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power’.

These processes have already resulted in an increase in the goods, ideas, information, and capital flowing
across borders and many commentators argue that globalization is also increasing the flow of people across
borders too.

International migration is an important dimension of globalization, and has become increasingly embedded
in changes in global economic and social structures. Growing developmental, demographic, and democratic
disparities provide powerful incentives to move, as does the global jobs crisis affecting large parts of the
developing world. The segmentation of labour markets in richer countries is creating increasing demand for
migrant workers there. A revolution in communications has facilitated growing awareness of disparities and
opportunities for would-be migrants, while transformations in transportation have made mobility cheaper
and more readily accessible. Migration networks have expanded rapidly and further facilitate migration.
New individual rights and entitlements allow certain people to cross borders and stay abroad more easily.
And the growth of a migration industry adds further momentum to international migration, even where it is
not officially permitted.

The communications revolution is a central element of the globalization process. Much of the academic
literature on globalization has focused on the recent explosion in hi-tech developments such as email and
the internet, electronic bulletin boards and satellite television stations, as well as cell phones and cheap
international telephone calls. It has been estimated, for example, that between 1990 and 2000 the number of
telephone lines worldwide increased from 700 million to 2.5 billion, while the number of internet users
increased from scarcely one million to over one billion. This revolution has facilitated increasing global
linkages and, in effect, reduced the distance between different parts of the world.
It is relevant to migration for two reasons. First, it makes people aware of disparities, of what life is like in
other parts of the world. Second, it makes people aware of opportunities to move and to work abroad. At
the same time, it is possible to overstate the communications revolution. There is a still a significant global

9
‘digital divide’, which is the term given to the gap in access to information resources that exists between
poor and rich countries. If the communications revolution has made many would-be migrants more aware
of reasons to migrate, the transportation revolution has made migration more feasible.

Most migrants move to countries where they have friends or family already established, forming what are
often referred to as transnational migration networks. It has been argued that one of the main reasons why
migration is increasing today is these migration networks, which establish a self-perpetuating cycle. The
expansion of migration means that more people than ever before have friends or family already living
abroad, and the changing geography of migration means that more often than previously these networks
link would-be migrants in poor countries with potential destinations in richer countries.
Migration networks have been shown to encourage migration in three main ways. First, they provide
information, often taking advantage of the new communications technology described above. Second, they
finance trips by lending would-be migrants’ money. Third, they have also been shown to play a crucial role
in helping new migrants to settle, by providing an initial place to stay, helping them find a job, and
providing other economic and social assistance.
Now adays, there has been a significant expansion of rights and entitlements that allow certain people to
cross borders and stay abroad far more easily than ever before. The dismantling of internal borders in the
European Union (EU), for example, allows for the free movement of EU citizens within the region, while
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and regional economic agreements in other parts of
the world, including Africa and South America, also contain some provisions for the free movement of
workers. Furthermore, certain categories of people – such as businesspeople, academics and students, sports
and entertainment performers – often either do not require visas or can apply via fast-track procedures.
Recently, Migration is facilitated by a wide range of individuals and agents including labour recruiters,
immigration lawyers, travel agents, brokers, housing providers, remittances agencies, immigration and
customs officials, as well as by entire institutions such as the International Organization for Migration
(IOM), which is often responsible for transporting migrants and refugees for official resettlement or return
programs, and NGOs that provide assistance and shelter to migrants and refugees.
At the same time its increasing complexity, linking highly organized groups with small operators and
subagents in origin, transit, and destination countries, makes it difficult for policy to intervene to reduce its
impact.
Globalization also creates disparity between developed and developing states which motivates migration.
Economic under development, over population, limited school enrolment and low literacy levels in poorer
countries compare with almost economically developed, less populated, universal enrolment and full
literacy in the richer ones motivates migrants from developing states. with very few exceptions the most
corrupt and undemocratic governments in the poorest countries also causes migration for better life abroad.

10
In addition to this, migration also job crisis like, being out of work and underemployed. This initiates
workers to be migrant to find better job and payment to sustain their life.

1.1.7 Gender and Migration

As a key organizing principle of society, gender is central to any discussion of the causes and consequences
of international migration, including the process of decision-making involved and the mechanisms leading
to migration. It is important to understand the causes and consequences of international migration from a
gender perspective because hierarchical social relations related to gender shape the migration experiences
of migrants, whether male or female. Understanding whether migration occurs because of gender inequality
or whether migration itself helps to perpetuate gender disparities is important to guide the formulation of
policy and measures to address the specific needs of women who migrate.
Gender inequality can be a powerful factor leading to migration when women have economic, political and
social expectations that cannot be realized in the country of origin. As with any migrant, the migration
outcomes for women vary depending on whether their movement is voluntary or forced, and on whether
their presence in the receiving country is legal or not.
The incorporation of a gender perspective in the analysis of migration demands considering four questions.
 First, how do the expectations, relationships and hierarchies associated with being female or male
affect the potential for international migration and process of migration itself?
 Second, how do gender inequalities in the societies of destination affect the experiences of migrant
women and migrant men?
 Third, to what extent and in what ways does migration benefit or disadvantage women and men?
 Fourth, what steps should be taken to ensure equal opportunities and outcomes for migrant women
and migrant men?
For both women and men, the economic and political context of the country-of-origin conditions how
migration decisions are made and how migration occurs. When practices or policies in the country of origin
discriminate against women by, for instance, limiting their access to resources or educational opportunities,
or by hindering their political participation, the capacity of women to participate fully in society and
contribute to it is reduced. These limitations also affect the potential of women to migrate and determine
whether women can migrate autonomously or not. Gender relations within the family determine who
migrates on their own, women or men. Gender norms about the inappropriateness of women migrating
autonomously, the constraining effects of their traditional family roles, women’s lack of social and
economic independence, all hinder women’s participation in international migration. The migration of
women is also limited by their lack of connections to social networks in the country of destination that
could provide information and resources to make the move possible.

11
 1.1.8 Women, Children and Migration
In 2020, 48 percent (134.9 million) of all international migrants worldwide were women or girls, according
to mid-2020 UN estimates. The number of female migrants grew by 26 percent over the past decade, up
from 107 million in 2010. The number of male migrants grew slightly faster, by 28 percent during the same
period. Most migrant women move for work, family, or education. Some leave their countries due to man-
made or natural disasters. Women and girls made up approximately half of the refugees and other
vulnerable humanitarian migrants.
Women migrate to work abroad in response to gender-specific labour demand in countries of destination
that reflects existing values, norms, stereotypes and hierarchies based on gender. Thus, although laws
regarding the admission of migrant workers are generally gender neutral, the demand for domestic workers,
nurses, and entertainers focuses on the recruitment of migrant women. Moreover, in countries of origin as
well, female labour supply is the result of gender norms and stereotypes that gear women to certain
traditionally female occupations. Recruitment intermediaries, whether private or official, also contribute to
reinforce gender segregation in the labour market. In addition, expectations about reciprocity within the
family in countries of origin may favour the migration of women if daughters are seen as more likely to
remit consistently and to undertake the responsibility of helping the family left behind. Migration is related
to the level of empowerment of women, with migration levels among women being higher when female
earning potential is more highly valued in the country of origin and women have access to local
employment and income-generating opportunities. However, access to such opportunities may dampen the
need or desire for migration.
Refugee women and girls or those who are displaced are particularly vulnerable when they find themselves
in situations where their security cannot be ensured and where they may be subject to sexual violence or
exploitation. Providing women and children who are refugees or displaced access to food and other
essential items is critical, as is their participation in decisions regarding their future and that of their
families.

The trafficking of women and girls for prostitution and forced labor is one of the fastest growing areas of
international criminal activity. Women who are trafficked are the most vulnerable of all migrants as the
process of trafficking involves exploitation, coercion and the abuse of power. Trafficking builds on existing
gender inequalities. Trafficked women frequently originate from regions where there are few employment
opportunities for women and where women are dependent on others and lack access to resources to change
their situation.
Trafficked women and girls often believe they will work in legitimate occupations but find themselves
trapped into forced prostitution, marriage, domestic work, sweatshops and other forms of exploitation that
are similar to slavery. Strategies need to be developed to protect and empower women in these situations.
Actions to prevent trafficking include the dissemination of information on the modes used by traffickers to

12
attract and entrap women, the dangers involved and the legal channels open for migration, as well as the
provision of better employment opportunities in the country of origin.
The category of migrant child refers to the person who is according to the law of the relevant country,
below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
Unaccompanied migrant children can be defined as migrant children “who migrate across national borders
separately (though not necessarily divorced) from their families, and include within this definition four
broad categories defined by the primary purpose of travel: (a) Children who travel in search of
opportunities, whether educational or employment related (b) Children who travel to survive – to escape
persecution or war, family abuse, dire poverty (c) Children who travel for family reunion – to join
documented or undocumented family members who have already migrated (d) Children who travel in the
context of exploitation (including trafficking). Of the 280.6 million international migrants in 2020, 35.5
million of them were children under the age of 18, according to the mid-2020 UN estimates. This is the
highest level ever recorded, according to the International Data Alliance for Children on the Move.

1.2. International Migration & Determinants of Migration

1.2.1. Why Does Migration Happen?
Sociologists have long analyzed migration in terms of the "push-pull" model. This model differentiates
between push factors that drive people to leave home, from pull factors that attract migrants to a new
location. Push factors occur within sending states, that is, those that send migrants abroad, while pull
factors occur within receiving states, that is, states that receive immigrants from sending states abroad. Push
factors are negative aspects of the sending country, while pull factors are positive aspects of the receiving
country. In fact, these differentiating factors are really two sides of the same coin. In moving migrants must
not only find a lack of benefits at home (push factors) but also expect a surplus of benefits abroad (pull
factors); otherwise, the move would not be worthwhile. There are also more ambiguous factors, called
network factors that can either facilitate or deter migration. As mentioned above, network factors include
cost of travel, the ease of communication, and international business trends. These factors are not related to
a specific country, but still have a profound effect on international migration.

Push Factors

Push factors come in many forms. Sometimes these factors leave people with no choice but to leave their
country of origin. Below are three examples of push factors that drive people to emigrate from their home
countries.

Lack of Jobs/Poverty: Economic factors provide the main motivation behind migration. In fact, according
to the International Labour Organization, approximately half of the total population of current international
migrants, or about 100 million migrant workers, have left home to find better job and lifestyle opportunities

13
for their families abroad (International Labour Office of the Director-General, 2008). In some countries,
jobs simply do not exist for a great deal of the population. In other instances, the income gap between
sending and receiving countries is great enough to warrant a move. India, for example, has recently
experienced a surge in emigration due to a combination of these factors (Index Mundi 2012). The greatest
challenge facing India is creating enough jobs for its burgeoning population. India's unemployed sector has
never been properly estimated, but it could total as much as 121 million people (Index Mundi 2012). The
number of skilled workers graduating from Indian universities is also continuing to increase. Meanwhile,
the number of domestic jobs available to university graduates is minimal. Only about 2.7 million jobs were
created between 2004-2005 and 2009-2010. Job creation has improved in recent years, but unemployment
rates still remain extremely high throughout India (The Economic Times, 2013). This imbalance will not
keep skilled workers in the country. Instead, many graduates from Indian universities migrate to the U.S.,
where their skills and lower wage demands appeal to high-tech companies. In fact, about 40 percent of
recent immigrants from India to the U.S. have been accepted due to employment-based preferences, thus
showing the high degree of American corporations’ demand for Indian skilled labor (Alarcon, 2007). As the
Indian population grows, and more students graduate from technical universities, India may experience a
great deal more emigration. While the case of India described above represents skilled/professional labor
migration, similar trends apply to low skilled migrant laborers, who may leave home countries due to lack
of demand and/or low wages for their work and excess need for this kind of work elsewhere. The influx of
low skilled laborers from Latin America into the U.S. to accommodate the growing service sector provides
an example of this alternate form of labor migration.

Civil Strife/War/Political and Religious Persecution: Some migrants are impelled to cross national
borders by war or persecution at home. These immigrants may be considered refugees or asylum seekers in
receiving countries. The 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defined the
qualifications for such migrants and bound signatory countries not to return these newcomers to places
where they could be persecuted. According to the text put forth by the Convention, a refugee is “someone
who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political
opinion” (1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees).

Environmental Problems: Environmental problems and natural disasters often cause the loss of money,
homes, and jobs. In the middle of the 19th century, for example, Ireland experienced a famine never before
seen in the country’s history. By late fall 1845, the main staple of the Irish diet, the potato, was practically
wiped out. With the government not clear on how to respond, many people died of starvation. The famine
killed hundreds of thousands and forced millions of Irish to flee. Between 1841 and 1851, the Irish
population decreased by 1.6 million people, or approximately 17% of the total population, due to starvation

14
and emigration (Daniels 2002). Other push factors include “primitive” conditions, natural disasters, poor
medical care, as well as slavery and political fear.

Pull Factors

Whereas push factors drive migrants out of their countries of origin, pull factors are responsible for
dictating where these travelers end up. The positive aspects of some countries serve to attract more
immigrants than others. Below are three examples of pull factors that draw migrants to receiving countries.

Higher standards of living/Higher wages: Economic incentives provide both the biggest push and pull
factors for potential migrants. People moving to more developed countries will often find that the same
work they were doing at home is rewarded abroad with higher wages. They will also find a greater safety
net of welfare benefits should they be unable to work. Migrants are drawn to those countries where they can
maximize benefits.

For example, Mexican migrants coming to America do not move strictly to escape unemployment at home.
In fact, during recent years the unemployment rate in Mexico has remained significantly lower than that of
the U.S; in 2011, for example, the unemployment rate in Mexico was 5.2 percent, while in the U.S. it was 9
percent (Index Mundi). Even so, a sizeable wage gap exists between the U.S. and Mexico. In 1994, the
North American Free Trade Agreement was implemented in the hopes of increasing wages in Mexico,
among other goals. However, since this time there has been little evidence of wage convergence between
the economies of the U.S. and Mexico, meaning that wages remain significantly higher in the U.S. for a
large portion of the population (Hanson, 2003). Thus, Mexican migrants may come to the U.S. because they
are attracted by the higher hourly wages, rather than the opportunity to find employment in general.

Labor Demand: Almost all developed countries have found that they need migrants' low skill labor to
support their growing economies. While most manufacturing is now outsourced to developing nations, low
skill employment opportunities are available in wealthy countries due to growing service sectors. These
economies create millions of jobs that domestic workers may refuse to fill because of their low wages and
minimal opportunity for professional advancement. Canada is an example of this trend; the country’s
migrant population has nearly doubled over the past couple of years (Geddes, 2012). It was the worst
imaginable way to jolt Canadians toward noticing that low-wage foreign workers are an increasingly
important segment of the country’s labour force. Ten workers, nine from Peru and one from Nicaragua,
recruited to fill jobs vaccinating chickens, were killed, and three others badly injured, when their van ran a
stop sign and collided with a truck at a rural crossroads in southwestern Ontario… When Stephen Harper’s
Conservatives won power in 2006, 255,440 foreign temporary workers lived in Canada. By 2010, their
ranks had expanded to 432,682. (Geddes, 2012)

Political and Religious Freedom: Much like discrimination and persecution provide strong push factors
for people to leave their home countries, the existence of tolerant government policies with regards to
15
religion, race, political views and so on may make certain countries more attractive to potential migrants.
This pull factor is especially relevant to those migrants who are escaping situations of persecution (and may
be considered refugees, as noted above) though it can apply to other migrants as well. Other pull factors
include superior medical care or education, family links or simply a personal fondness of a certain place,
whether it may be linked to culture, language, weather conditions or other influencing factors.

1.3. Migration Trends

1.3.1 What are different categories of Migrants?
Migrants tend to move across different categories as their circumstances and that of their home countries
change.

Economic Migrants

Economic migration is the movement of people from one country to another to benefit from greater
economic opportunities in the receiving country. It is often assumed that such migration is primarily from
less economically developed countries in the global south to the more economically developed countries in
the global north (also known as the ‘West’) - for example, from Mexico to the USA, from North Africa to
Europe and from former colonies to the country that was the imperial power. However, there is also
economic migration between countries in the global south - particularly neighbouring countries - as well as
within the global north, for example, from countries in South Asia to the Middle East, from Burma to
Thailand and from the UK to Spain.

Political Migrants

Many people are forced to migrate because of a war, civil war or state policies which discriminate against
particular categories of its citizens or the political opponents of those in power. These people are unable to
return home because they have well founded fears of being persecuted and are unlikely to receive any
protection from their government.

Environmental Migrants

Environmental migrants are people who are forced to migrate from or flee their home region due to sudden
or long-term changes to their local environment which adversely affects their wellbeing or livelihood. Such
changes can include slow-onset environmental change or degradation such as increasingly frequent
droughts, a rise in sea levels and desertification; or they can be related to sudden environmental changes
resulting from earthquakes, cyclones or floods.

Family Reunion

16
This form of migration refers to a situation in which members of a family come to join one of its members,
who is lawfully resident in another country. This commonly includes fiancé(e)s, (proposed) civil partners
(in countries where such provisions exist), spouses, or unmarried or same-sex partners (again, this route is
only available in some countries), dependent children and adult and elderly dependent relatives.
There are two basic types of migration studied by demographers: Internal migration. This refers to a
change of residence within national boundaries, such as between states, provinces, cities, or municipalities.
An internal migrant is someone who moves to a different administrative territory. International
migration. This refers to change of residence over national boundaries. An international migrant is someone
who moves to a different country. International migrants are further classified as legal immigrants, illegal
immigrants, and refugees. Legal immigrants are those who moved with the legal permission of the receiver
nation, illegal immigrants are those who moved without legal permission, and refugees are those crossed an
international boundary to escape persecution.

1.3.2. Which Continents have the Highest Inflows and Outflows of Migrants?
Human migration may well be an age-old activity touching almost every society around the world;
however, it is changing in important ways. Examining the shifts in scale, direction, demography and
frequency can illuminate how migration is evolving while also pointing to long-term trends that have been
shaped by historical as well as recent events. The current global estimate is that there were around 281
million international migrants in the world in 2020, which equates to 3.6 per cent of the global population.
A first important point to note is that this is a very small minority of the world’s population, meaning that
staying within one’s country of birth overwhelmingly remains the norm. The great majority of people do
not migrate across borders; much larger numbers migrate within countries.
The estimated number of international migrants has increased over the past 50 years. In 2020, almost 281
million people lived in a country other than their country of birth, or about 128 million more than 30 years
earlier, in 1990 (153 million), and over three times the estimated number in 1970 (84 million). The
proportion of international migrants as a share of the total global population has also increased, but only
incrementally. The vast majority of people live in the country in which they were born.

17
 International migrants, 1970–2020

Year Number of international migrants Migrants as a % of the world’s population

1970 84 460 125 2.3
1975 90 368 010 2.2
1980 101 983 149 2.3
1985 113 206 691 2.3
1990 152 986 157 2.9
1995 161 289 976 2.8
2000 173 230 585 2.8
2005 191 446 828 2.9
2010 220 983 187 3.2
2015 247 958 644 3.4
2020 280 598 105 3.6
SOURCE: WORLD MIGRATION REPORT 2022

18
When international migrant populations are examined by United Nations region, Europe is currently the
largest destination for international migrants, with 87 million migrants (30.9% of the international migrant
population), followed closely by the 86 million international migrants living in Asia (30.5%).9 Northern
America is the destination for 59 million international migrants (20.9%), followed by Africa with 25
million migrants (9%). Over the past 15 years, the number of international migrants in Latin America and
the Caribbean has more than doubled from around 7 million to 15 million, making it the region with the
highest growth rate of international migrants and the destination for 5.3 per cent of all international
migrants. Around 9 million international migrants live in Oceania, or about 3.3 per cent of all migrants.
Oceania has the largest share of international migrants as a proportion of the total population, with 22 per
cent of the population having been born in another country. Northern America has the second largest share
of international migrants at 15.9 per cent, followed by Europe at 11.6 per cent. Latin America and the
Caribbean, Africa, and Asia have international migrant shares of 2.3, 1.9, and 1.8 per cent respectively.
As has been the case for the past 50 years, the United States of America remains the primary destination for
migrants, at over 51 million international migrants. Germany has become the second most prominent
destination, with nearly 16 million international migrants, while Saudi Arabia is the third largest destination
country for international migrants, at 13 million. The Russian Federation and the United Kingdom round
out the top five destination countries, with about 12 million and 9 million international migrants
respectively.
With nearly 18 million people living abroad, India has the largest emigrant population in the world, making
it the top origin country globally. Mexico is the second most significant origin country at around 11 million.
The Russian Federation is the third largest origin country, followed closely by China (around 10.8 million
and 10 million respectively). The fifth most significant origin country is the Syrian Arab Republic, with
over 8 million people living abroad, mainly as refugees due to large-scale displacement over the last
decade.
The available international migrant data include estimates of origin and destination links between two
countries, allowing for the estimation of bilateral migration “corridors” globally. The size of a migration
corridor from country A to country B is measured as the number of people born in country A who were
residing in country B in 2020.
Migration corridors represent an accumulation of migratory movements over time and provide a snapshot
of how migration patterns have evolved into significant foreign-born populations in specific destination
countries. The Mexico to United States corridor is the largest in the world at nearly 11 million people. The
second is from the Syrian Arab Republic to Turkey, comprising mainly refugees displaced by the Syrian
Arab Republic’s decade-long civil war. On the other hand, the third largest corridor in the world, India to
the United Arab Emirates (over 3 million), comprises mainly labor migrants. The bilateral corridor between
the Russian Federation and Ukraine takes up spots four and five among the largest corridors in the world.

19
About 3 million people born in the Russian Federation now live in Ukraine, while nearly the same number
of people have moved from Ukraine to the Russian Federation.
In terms of geography, 102.4 million or almost 61 per cent of all migrant workers resided in three
subregions: Northern America; the Arab States; and Northern, Southern and Western Europe.27 Notably,
there is a striking gender imbalance of migrant workers in two regions: Southern Asia (5.7 million males
compared with 1.4 million females) and the Arab States (19.9 million males compared with 4.2 million
females). The Arab States region is one of the top destinations for migrant workers, where they comprise
41.4 per cent of the entire working population, often dominating in key sectors.
By the end of 2020, there was a total of 26.4 million refugees globally, with 20.7 million under UNHCR’s
mandate and 5.7 million refugees registered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees (UNRWA) in the Near East. Consistent with the previous years, more than half of all refugees
resided in 10 countries.
In 2020, for the fifth consecutive year, Turkey was the largest host country in the world, with over 3.6
million refugees, mainly Syrians. Reflecting the significant share of Syrians in the global refugee
population, the bordering country of Lebanon also featured among the top 10. Pakistan and the Islamic
Republic of Iran were also among the top 10 refugee-hosting countries, as the two principal hosts of
refugees from Afghanistan, the second largest origin country. Uganda, Germany, the Sudan, Bangladesh
and Ethiopia comprised the rest. The vast majority (73%) of refugees were hosted in neighboring countries.
According to UNHCR, the least developed countries – such as Bangladesh, Chad, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, South Sudan, the Sudan, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda and
Yemen – hosted 27 per cent of the global total (6.7 million refugees).

20
 CHAPTER TWO

MIGRATION THEORIES, RIGHTS, AND POLICIES/LAWS

2.1. Theories of Migration

Several theories have been developed to treat international patterns of migration on their own terms, but
these too are variants of push-pull theory.

Neo-classical Theory

The oldest and best-known theory of international migration is Neo-classical Theory. It explains the impact
of labor migration on economic development. According to this theory and its extensions, the cause for
international migration is the geographical imbalance between demand and supply of labor. In regions
where the supply of labor is elastic, but the labor is paid low wages and their marginal productivity is low,
workers tend to migrate to a high-wage country. As a result of this trend, remittances generation has
become a powerful incentive for labor-sending countries to encourage out-migration. In addition, migration
contributes to the labor-receiving country’s economy by fostering production, and the remittances-receiving
country could ideally reduce its income inequality and wage differentials.

However, the implicit idea behind this theory is that the elimination of wage differentials would end labor
movements and labor migration would reach its minimum. Harris and Todaro (1970) have pointed out facts
which are supportive of this argument. They emphasize that the decision to migrate is heavily influenced by
job opportunities available to the migrant at the initial stage and expected income differentials.

Another major assumption made under the Neo-classical explanation is that the international flow of labor
primarily happens in labor markets and that other markets do not have a key role to play with regard to
international migration. When these assumptions are considered, it could be argued that the Neo-classical
approach is optimistic about the impacts of migration on labour-sending counties due to high expectations
of reduced poverty, unemployment and overpopulation.

21
Further, Constant and Massey (2002) have fostered an assumption of Neo-classical perspective
where the immigrant would not return to the home country as long as h/she benefits from
wages, education and prestige in the host country. This would typically lead to wages of the
unskilled labor force being reduced in the host country due to migration, and producers there
would employ more unskilled labor than skilled labor-, and capital-intensive production. Then
again, this depends on the scale of migration and minimum wage regulations. According to
empirical evidence, there is not much proof that there is a significant decline in local
employment along with a considerable reduction in wages as a result of migration. If anything,
the human capital of migrants is the deciding factor that contributes to the growth of migrants.

According to the Neo-classical Theory, it is further assumed that labor market rules and controls
could regulate international migration of both sending and receiving countries. This assumption
appears to be true in the present context, since many regulations are in place that effectively
control the export of labor. One of the best examples is the restriction imposed by the
government of Sri Lanka on mothers who have children below the age of 5 years to accept
overseas jobs in the capacity of housemaids.

In most developing countries, the first migration is not necessarily voluntary. Many factors like
poverty, civil conflicts, and restraining state policies play an important role (UNESCAP, 2007).
Thus, the assumptions of the Neo-classical approach could be challenged particularly in the
context of developing countries. Though the household conditions are not very favorable and
greener pastures available abroad, non-migrants may sometimes stay at home for socio-cultural
reasons such as hierarchical power relations within the family, kinship systems, and gender.
Females may stay at home because gender norms prescribe that leaving the family behind is
inappropriate, while males may be forced to stay behind to fulfill a perceived security function
in the household. Also, parents might decide against out-migration in the interest of their
children’s education, security, mental health, etc.

The New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM)

New Economics of Labor Migration has been developed recently with the purpose of
challenging the assumptions and conclusions of Neo-classical Theory. NELM focuses on
migration from the micro individual level to meso units such as families, households or other
culturally defined units. In other words, a key insight of this new approach is that the decision to

22
migrate is not merely an individual decision, but is a collective decision of households or
families where their aim is not only to increase income, but is also a risk management strategy
in the context of market failures, in addition to failures in the labor market. However, the theory
suggests not to ignore individual behavior, but to study it in the context of a group. When a
group is considered, households are in a position to diversify risks of economic well-being by
utilizing labor resources in different ways. Family members could be made to earn an income in
order to minimize risks of job insecurity and income fluctuations by assigning them economic
activities both in the country of origin and in the hosting country. Through this, deterioration of
local income could be compensated by migrant remittances and vice versa. Furthering the
argument, Cassarino (2004) opines that the return of migrants to the country of origin after
achieving such targets as savings, insurance, household needs, acquisition of investment capital
and skills is logical.

A number of improvements in NELM could be observed in comparison to the Neo-classical

Theory. The emphasis on wage differentials in the Neo-classical approach is outperformed by
the group role of households in NELM, challenging the assumptions of the former. However, it
should be noted that wage differentials and household decision-making are not mutually
exclusive or antagonistic categories. Families are very likely to consider wage differentials to be
a strong, though definitely not the only factor, when choosing a work destination for their
family member abroad. Therefore, it can be said that NELM challenges the Neo-classical
approach only to the extent that it pays attention to the structural conditions of the individual,
and not just the labor market. The conceptual framework built around the role of families and
households under NELM has highlighted that remittances act as part of a mutually beneficial
arrangement between the migrant and the migrant’s family (Lucas & Stark, 1985). Therefore,
NELM’s focus on labor as a pooled resource of a household has become a vital criterion when
compared to the individual role played by the migrant in the Neo-classical explanation.

Dual Labor Market Theory

In 1979, Michael J. Piore introduced the Dual Labor Market Theory which is a divergence from
micro-level models. The model shies away from viewing migration as a consequence of
decisions made by individuals, and argues that international migration is the result of intrinsic
labor demands of industrialized societies at present (Massey et al., 1993). Michael (1979) points

23
out the permanent demand from industrialized and developed nations at present to facilitate
their development propagandas as the cause of international migration. In other words,
international migration happens not due to push factors seen in sending-countries, but due to
pull factors seen in receiving-countries. According to Michael, push factors are low wages and
high unemployment, while pull factors are essential and unavoidable needs expected to be
fulfilled by foreign workers in receiving-counties. Further, this theory emphasizes on four core
features of industrialized countries that explicate the pulling of labor from other countries,
namely structural inflation, motivational problems, economic dualism and the demography of
the labor supply (Massey et al., 1993).

The Dual Labor Market Theory suggests certain implications which are in contrast to macro
level models, even though it does not clash with Neo-classical Economics in its basic concepts
(Massey et al., 1993). One such implication in contrast to the Neo-classical and NELM
approaches is the demand-driven nature of international labor migration. The theory says that
the demand for migrant workers is generated from structural needs of the economy, rather than
by wage differentials or wishes of households or families.

Network Theory

Labor migration can happen for various reasons. Some of them are: a desire for high individual
income, an attempt for risk diversification of household income, an international displacement
with a market penetration strategy, and as a program of recruitment to satisfy employer
demands for low-wage workers. Even if several reasons could be observed as above, they alone
cannot explain actual migration patterns. Other factors like geographical proximity to nation
states, availability of social networks, institutions, and cultural and historical factors should
therefore be focused on. Migration network is a contemporary concept linked to the concept of
social capital. Arango (2000) defines migration network as a “set of interpersonal ties that
connects migrants with relatives, friends or fellow countrymen at home who convey
information, provide financial backups, and facilitate employment opportunities and
accommodation in various supportive ways”. These networks reduce the costs and risks of
movement of people, and increase the expected net returns of migration. As a result of these
networks, subsequent migrations have positively contributed to enhance opportunities for other
migrants in their decision-making process. Furthermore, the diaspora and other networks have

24
the ability to influence migrants when the latter select their destinations. It is revealed that
network connections are a form of social capital which grants wide access to employment
abroad.

Correspondingly, positive effects from the network migration mechanism have influenced the
development aspect of the sending-country, while generating considerable levels of legal,
political and financial obstacles on immigration related matters in the receiving-country. Van
Naerssen et al. (2008) have identified “transnational communities as mechanisms which
reproduce their own sociocultural practices abroad, forming an extended national market;
penetrating the development of migrant businesses in both origin and host countries”.
Therefore, these multinational or transnational businesses have created a variety of
commodities, capital, ideas and skill, thus contributing to the fostering of social, political, and
cultural ties in addition to economic ones.

Migration System Theory

The core assumption behind this theory is that migration contributes to change the economic,
social, cultural and institutional conditions in both the receiving and sending country. Further,
the focus of the System approach is both on the macro and micro linkages of places linked to
the migration process. Micro level factors include kinship and friendship systems, while macro
level factors focus on economy, dominance, political systems, national policies of immigration,
and cultural and social systems. Unlike other models, the Migration System Theory emphasizes
on the mutual link between migration and development. Therefore, this theory is relevant for
developing a theoretical framework that considers migration in a broader development
perspective. Not only economic development, but migration also supports social development.
For instance, remittances sent back to family members could alter the social and economic
context of labor-sending countries. Hence, it could be argued that migration has the ability to
influence socio-economic development of the country of origin and encourage subsequent
migration both at macro and micro levels.

Institutional Theory

With the origin of international migration, a number of institutions and organizations were set
up to capitalize on the imbalance between the employers of labor-receiving countries and
potential migrants of labor-sending countries. There is a considerable mismatch between the

25
large number of people seeking employment opportunities in industrialized countries and the
limited immigrant visas available in these countries. As a result, many profit-seeking as well as
not-for-profit organizations have been established in order to address issues of migrants and
employers. Most not-for-profit organizations place emphasis on the humanitarian aspect of the
migrants, while profit-seeking organizations along with private entrepreneurs facilitate the
crossing of borders, counterfeiting legal and travel documents, arranging marriages between
migrants and legal residents/ citizens of the destination country, and providing credit facilities at
high rates in exchange for fees. As profit-seeking organizations often engage in illegal behavior,
most not-for-profit organizations provide relief to the affected migrants by means of counseling,
social services, legal advice, awareness on immigration laws etc. The Institutional Theory is
important especially in today’s context in order to create a more favorable and a strong policy
framework for both labor-sending and receiving countries.

Cumulative Causation Theory

The Cumulative Causation Theory was developed by Gunnar Myrdal in 1956. It was further
developed by Douglas Massey and his colleagues. The theory explains as to why a migration
flow begins and continues to grow. In short, it describes how the number of outgoing migrants
increases over time, since the first migrant provides social capital to relatives, friends and others
in the country of origin, which ultimately encourages them to find jobs easily and face
minimum risk in destination countries. This situation stimulates and influences people to
migrate more and more. The Cumulative Causation Theory could be subsumed under the
System Theory and/or Network Theory.

2.2. Major Short-comings of Migration Theories

The Neo-classical Theory has been subjected to many criticisms in the literature. Van Naerssen
et al. (2008) state that the assumptions of the theory are challenged in the context of developing
countries due to the lack of attention it pays to sociological and cultural factors which directly
affect migration. Analyzing the shortcomings of this theory, Kurekova (2011) states that it
ignores market imperfections, reduces the determinants of migration, and standardizes migrants
and migrant societies. He further points out that in general, Neo-classical Theory ignores the
impacts of migration on sending and receiving countries, and ignores the importance of politics
and policies for the process. Massey, Arango, Hugo, Kouaouci, and Pellegrino (1999) state that

26
widespread dissatisfaction with the Neo-classical approach explains the emergence of new
theoretical perspectives.

Moreover, it is assumed that migrants are fully aware of the main facts relevant to their job
opportunities and wages. However, in reality, there is imperfect information available to
migrants on job opportunities in foreign countries as the former is manipulated by
intermediaries. brokers, recruitment agencies, rural agents, smuggling networks, and
unstructured institutions heavily influence the international migration industry, and the latter is
manipulated for their own benefit due to the lack of a proper regulatory framework. Therefore,
it can be argued that the Neo-classical Theory emphasizes on economic matters and excludes
the social, cultural and political dimensions of migration. In this regard, Prakash (2009) states
that the theory is too economic in nature and it leaves out other important aspects that can
potentially affect the movement of people. Further, the Neo-classical explanation has been
developed by considering facts in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Europe. Skeldon
(2014) therefore criticizes Neo-classical Theory as a more historical and Eurocentric analysis.

Arango (2000) states that the main limitation of NELM is its exclusion of other major forms of
international migration like illegal migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and families, which in
turn challenge the assumptions of the model. Further, NELM ignores household concerns like
the role of gender, and is predominantly future-oriented (Faist & Faist, 2000). Similarly,
Kurekova (2011) points out certain shortcomings of this theory such as being biased towards the
sending-country, and its limited applicability in practice due to difficulties in separating issues
related to market imperfections.

Commenting on the weaknesses of the Dual Labour Market Theory, Prakash (2009) says that
the theory does not sufficiently explain the causes of international migration. It mostly
emphasizes on the importance of structural demand for foreign labour in host countries, and
only briefly touches upon unfavorable conditions in the worker’s home country. As per Arango
(2000), the theory excludes push factors like low wages and high unemployment in labour-
sending countries, and explains only pull factors in labour-receiving counties. This sheds light
on the fact that the Dual Labour Market Theory neglects many migrants who move out from a
country based on their own personal desires, rather than to merely benefit from employment
abroad. Kurekova (2011) states that the theory excludes labour-sending countries and is biased

27
towards formal recruitment. According to him, the theory does not consider various
immigration rates in countries where similar economic structures are observed. Additionally,
this theory portrays developed countries as consistent and willing recipients of skilled labour,
whereas the domination of the economy by immigrants becomes a serious issue for the host
government. A telling example is Singapore, whose unrestricted access grants to individuals
eventually led to acute fears of declining job opportunities for the locals, and serious
demographic revisions, among other things.

The downside of the Migration Network Theory is also an important segment to be investigated.
According to Portes and Landolt (1996), strong networks among a certain group of individuals
exclude the entry of outside members to that particular network. According to Ullah (2016), the
importance of Network Theory has declined over the years since people have better access to
perfect information on labour market requirements and recruitment procedures with the
development of technology.

Further to above, Drbohlav (2011) identifies many general shortcomings associated with
migration theories which are summarized as follows. Drbohlav states that certain migration
theories are merely concepts, frameworks, perspectives or attitudes which results in migration
theories being illogical. According to Drbohlav, many theories of migration focus on
immigrating countries, and specifically on labour migration. In his opinion, political aspects or
an individual’s will are not considered important in most of these theories. Further, female
migration may be pointed out as an under-researched area in the migration knowledge corpus.

It appears that all theories related to international migration have certain shortcomings. This
may be due to the complex nature of the concept of migration. On the other hand, migration is a
mixed phenomenon and it encompasses many different fields such as Economics, Sociology,
Geography, Culture, Religion, Law, Political Science, Demography and Psychology. Therefore,
it is clear that scholars who founded these theories focused on migration within the framework
of their respective fields. What is required now may be a holistic approach to migration that
affords a nuanced understanding of this global phenomenon.

2.3. International Laws and Migration

Migrant rights are the rights of migrants that are implicitly or explicitly set by international
migration law, including international human rights and other public law instruments.

28
International human rights treaties and their associated additional protocols that grant rights to
migrants by virtue of migrants’ humanity:
 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 1963 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination
 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination
 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child
 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of Their Families
 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
 2006 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance
Key treaties from international public law that convey rights to migrants:
 1949 International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention no. 97 concerning
Migration for Employment
 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol
 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Seas
 1975 ILO Convention no. 143 concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the
Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers
 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)
 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

29
  2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially
Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime
 2000 Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air
 2011 Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enumerates the civil and political
rights which all persons within the State’s territory or within its jurisdiction should enjoy. It
forbids the discrimination between nationals and nonnationals, with narrow exceptions for
political rights that are explicitly guaranteed to nationals, and freedom of movement.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights establishes that States
shall protect the rights of all individuals regardless of citizenship to work, just and favorable
conditions, an adequate standard of living, good health, and other economic, social and cultural
rights.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
prohibits all discrimination on the basis of race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin. It
allows distinctions to be made between nationals and non-nationals, provided that such
distinctions do not result in discrimination against any particular group and that they do not
affect the equal enjoyment of rights guaranteed to all persons under the relevant international
human rights instruments.
The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of their Families defines the rights of migrants in every country regardless of their
legal status, inter alia, guaranteeing equal treatment and working conditions on par with
nationals. It also provides additional rights for migrant workers and members of their family
who reside in the country lawfully.
The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and
Children requires States to prevent the trafficking in persons and to protect and assist persons
who become victims of human trafficking. The Protocol calls for greater cooperation among
States and different stakeholders in order to achieve these objectives.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that all children within the jurisdiction of
a State Party shall have the right to a name and to acquire a nationality; the Convention also

30
provides that States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights, in particular when
the child would otherwise be stateless.
The CRC Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children provides a legal framework to prevent and
punish sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. This Protocol also deals with
the issue of protection of child victims of these crimes both when they enter in contact with the
criminal justice system as victims or witnesses and more generally with respect to their recovery
and reintegration.
The CRC Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict establishes the
obligation to take all feasible measures to prevent the participation in hostilities by persons
under the age of 18 years, notably by ensuring that there
is no compulsory recruitment into the armed forces under this age and by criminalizing the
recruitment by armed groups. The Protocol sets forth a duty to provide victims of such acts with
recovery and reintegration measures.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women defines what
constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such
discrimination.
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and
Punishment prohibits all forms of torture and ill-treatment. It also prohibits the refoulement of
any person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she
would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Convention on Status of Stateless
People refer to stateless persons who are not refugees and therefore establish the rights of
persons who do not fall within the scope of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
The Protocol Against Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air has as its objective the
reduction of organized crime groups abusing migrants. It calls for greater cooperation and the
exchange of information and other appropriate measures, including socio-economic measures,
at the national, regional and international levels, to achieve this objective.
The Convention on the Status of Refugees establishes the rights of individuals of asylum and the
responsibility of States granting asylum.

31
2.3.1 Fundamental/Basic Rights of Migrants
Migrant rights are the rights of migrants that are implicitly or explicitly set by international
migration law, including international human rights and other public law instruments.
Measuring the rights of migrants exclusively through a human rights-based approach, an
approach that only considers international human rights instruments, does not encompass the
full range of migrant rights set by other instruments. On the other hand, a rights-based
approach acknowledges that the rights of migrants are granted not only by human rights law but
also by treaties from other branches of international public law, including but not limited to:

 Refugee law;
 Transnational criminal law, especially treaties relating to human trafficking and
smuggling of migrants;
 Humanitarian law;
 Labour law; and
 Law of the Sea.

Rights of migrants have emerged as part of the human rights’ international legal framework,
codified after WWII in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent human
rights treaties adopted by States. Indeed, human rights are not only the rights of nationals, but
the rights belonging to all individuals who are under the jurisdiction of a State (meaning all
individuals that are on the territory of the States or under the effective control of agents of the
State).

There are three overarching reasons for why it is important to protect the human rights of
migrants. First, it is a matter of both law and morality. Most national laws and constitutions do
not restrict their recognition of human rights to citizens or nationals only, and accept that these
rights are applicable to everyone physically present in the territory of the state or subject to its
jurisdiction. experience shows that well-governed migratory processes make far more beneficial
contributions to the economic and social development of origin, transit and destination countries
as well as the human development of both migrants and nationals, and that they also contribute
to social cohesion. Third, a just, viable and sustainable migration system necessarily includes

32
the recognition of migrants’ human rights and attention to ensuring decent working conditions
for migrants.
Labour rights provided for in all international labour conventions apply to migrant workers. In
particular, Member States have an obligation to respect, promote and realize, in good faith and
in accordance with the International Labour Organization (ILO) Constitution, the principles
concerning the rights stipulated in the fundamental conventions. This obligation derives from
membership in the ILO and from the endorsement by Member States of the principles set out in
the Constitution and in the Declaration of Philadelphia. The 1998 ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up is clear in this respect.
The Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work are grouped into four sets:
⸙ Freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective
bargaining;
⸙ The elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor;
⸙ The effective abolition of child labor; and
⸙ The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Each set corresponds to two fundamental labor conventions. All migrant workers, regardless of
their status, should enjoy these rights.
Freedom of Association and the Effective Recognition of the Right to Collective Bargaining:
Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining both empower migrant workers
and enable them to better access other human rights. By exercising these rights, workers can
participate in the development of national and international economic policies as well as
policies in the workplace. Recognizing the right of migrant workers to organize and participate
in collective bargaining will increase the effectiveness of such policies.
The Elimination of all Forms of Forced or Compulsory Labor
The abolition of forced labor is essential to the protection of fundamental freedoms and is
related to income and human capital formation, which are likely to be depressed by forced
labor. Trafficking of human beings is one of the manifestations of forced labor in international
migration. The exploitation it entails turns migration into a negative experience for migrant
workers as well as for countries of origin and destination. Confiscation of travel documents also
leads to forced labor situations.
The Effective Abolition of Child Labour

33
An increasing number of unaccompanied108 children are crossing international borders to
work, which makes the elimination of child labour particularly important. Child labour
adversely affects the present and future lives of working boys and girls by affecting their health
and depriving them of education. Precluding human capital formation, child labour is also
detrimental to development in the children’s countries.
The Elimination of Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation
Equality and non-discrimination are basic principles underlying human and labour rights. In a
world of Nation-States where rights derive from citizenship, these principles are of utmost
importance for the protection of workers who are outside their countries of origin. Treating
migrant workers with equality and non-discrimination has a positive impact upon migrant
workers’ countries of origin and destination.
It enables workers to reach their full working potential, enhance their earnings, improve their
living conditions (and the living conditions of their families), contribute to development in their
countries of origin and increase their participation in the economy of the countries of
destination.
In addition, Article 6 of Convention No. 97 on Migration for Employment provides for equality
of treatment in respect, inter alia, of:
1. Remuneration, including family allowances where these form part of remuneration,
hours of work, overtime arrangements, holiday with pay, restrictions on homework,
minimum age for employment, apprenticeship and training;
2. Accommodation;
3. Social security (legal provision in respect of employment injury, maternity, sickness,
invalidity, old age, death, unemployment and family responsibilities, and any other
contingency, which is covered by a social security scheme), subject to specific
limitations provided for by appropriate arrangements, national laws or regulations, and
4. Employment taxes, dues or contributions payable in respect of the person employed.
According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a migrant child has basic rights.
Four fundamental principles of the CRC provide a basis for all actions that States may take to
respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights of children:
 Non-Discrimination: CRC Article 2 states, among other things, that children should not
be discriminated because of their nationality, ethnic origin or other status.

34
  Best Interests of the Child: CRC Article 3 states that “in all actions concerning children,
whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law,
administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a
primary consideration.”
 Life, Survival and Development: The right to survival is related to the right to an
adequate standard of living, the highest attainable standard of health, nutritious food and
clean drinking water. CRC Article 27 states that States Parties should take appropriate
measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement the right of
adequate living and to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents
or other persons having financial responsibility for the child. Furthermore, vital to
survival and development of the child is CRC Article 19 protecting the child from
violence and exploitation.
 The Right of the Child to be Heard and Participate: Children have the fundamental right
to formulate and express opinions about all matters that affect them. The CRC
establishes the principle that children’s views should be heard and given due attention,
taking into account “the age and maturity of the child.”

2.4. International Law and Cooperation Frameworks

2.4.1. International Cooperation on Migration
Cooperation between governments in countries of origin, transit and destination, and among
non-governmental organizations, civil society and migrants themselves, is vital for ensuring that
international human rights instruments are implemented and that migrants are aware of their
rights and obligations.
Many international institutions and nongovernmental organizations help both developed and
developing countries deal with migration, such as the previously mentioned International
Organization for Migration (IOM). Other organizations deal with specific aspects of migration.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provides assistance to those
fleeing their native countries for fear of persecution. The International Labor Organization
(ILO) promotes fair hiring standards and adequate working conditions for migrants.
Financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund study the
economic effects of migration. The division of oversight of international migration between
various governments, private corporations and non-profit organizations has led to calls for the

35
creation of an international authority on migration policy. While a formal organization has yet
to be established, there have been several global conferences over the past decade aimed at
streamlining migration policies and ensuring fair treatment of migrants. Examples include the
Berne Initiative, which resulted in the International Agenda for Migration Management to
encourage cooperation between nations, and the Conference on Migration and Development,
which highlighted the need for multinational collaboration in forming migration policies
(Perspectives and Experiences of the International Organization for Migration, 2006). While
these conferences and others like them have set forth protocols regarding migration policy and
urged nations to participate, few binding international laws have been implemented to dictate
how nations handle migration.
The following developments underline the progressive international recognition and
commitment to migration.
• The 1990, International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of Their Families brought together dispositions already adopted by international
human and labour rights instruments that apply to migrants, with the objective to protect them
from exploitation and the violation of their human rights.
• In 2005, one of the recommendations in the report of the Global Commission on International
Migration is to integrate migration into development plans to improve migration governance.
• In 2006, the first United Nations High-level Dialogue on Migration and Development called
for migration to be integrated into national development plans, poverty reduction strategies, and
sector policies and programs.
• In 2007, the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) was launched to create an
informal, non-binding, voluntary, and government led process to informally discuss relevant
policies, practical challenges and opportunities of the migration–development nexus, and to
engage with other stakeholders.
• In 2010, the Global Migration Group published a handbook on mainstreaming migration into
development planning, a concept it defined as “the process of assessing the implications of
migration on any actions planned in a development and poverty reduction strategy.”
• In 2013, the second United Nations High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development
placed

36
migration firmly on the post-2015 development agenda, recognizing the multi-dimensional
reality
of migration and the need for cross-cutting and coherent approaches to deal with it.
• In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its subsequent 17 Sustainable
Development Goals were adopted. The agenda is a commitment to achieve sustainable
development by 2030 globally so that no one is left behind. It outlines a plan of action for
people, planet and prosperity, providing an overarching framework to address the complex and
dynamic relationship between migration and development.
• In 2015, Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for
Development was created to support and complement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, contextualizing its means of implementation targets with concrete policies and
actions and reaffirming the strong political commitment to address financing.
• In 2015, the Paris Agreement was adopted a t COP21 as the first universal, legally binding
global climate change agreement. It recognizes the growing links between climate change,
displacement and migration, calling for States to respect and promote the rights of migrants.
From the Paris Agreement, the Task Force on Displacement was formed which is mandated to
develop recommendations on climate change-related displacement.
• In 2015, the Sendai Declaration and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-
2030 was adopted. It recognizes migrants’ specific vulnerabilities in disasters and is aimed at
addressing drivers of climate and disaster-related displacement by enhancing cooperation
between countries, developing DRR plans, promoting the use of multi-hazard, early warning
systems and addressing displacement risks.
• In 2016, the United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants culminated in the signing of
the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which recognized migrants’
contributions to development in countries of origin and residence, and called for the adoption of
a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and a Global Compact on Refugees.
• In 2016, the New Urban Agenda was created as a framework for the sustainable management
of cities. In the New Urban Agenda, States commit to combatting discrimination faced by many
urban residents, including refugees, returnees, internally displaced persons and migrants,
regardless of their migration status. It recognizes the significant cultural, social, and economic
contributions of migrants and calls for local authorities to support migrant participation in cities.

37
• In 2018, the UN General Assembly adopted the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and
Regular Migration. It is the first intergovernmental negotiated agreement to cover all
dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner.
• In 2018, the UN General Assembly also adopted the Global Compact on Refugees which
recognized the need for a holistic approach to international protection including themes of
development and a multi-stakeholder approach.
• In 2019, the High-level Debate on International Migration and Development (in lieu of the
2019 High-level Dialogue) informed the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable
Development (HLPF) by taking into consideration the outcomes of other processes related to
international migration and development. Member States observed that migration is both a
development strategy and a development outcome of major relevance to countries of origin,
transit and destination. Efforts should be taken to integrate migration in global policy agendas
as well as in development planning at the national level.
• In 2019, DAC Recommendations on HPDN were adopted by DAC with the aim to strengthen
coherence between humanitarian, development, and peace spheres in order to shift from
delivering humanitarian assistance and focus on longer term development objectives. Instability
as a cause of protracted conflict, political, economic, and social crises all contributed to
increases in displacement, hampering development outcomes.
• In 2022, the first International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) took place. The I MRF is set
to occur every four years and serve as the primary intergovernmental global platform for
Member States to discuss and share progress on the implementation of all aspects of the Global
Compact, including as it relates to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

2.5. International and Regional Migration Policies/Laws

The term migration policy refers to the regulation of emigration, that is, the departure of people
from their home country or region, and immigration, that is, the arrival and settlement of people
in another country or region. Regulating migration involves a variety of actors. It also
considered as a government’s statements of what it intends to do or not do (including laws,
regulations, decisions or orders) in regards to the selection, admission, settlement and
deportation of foreign citizens residing in the country. Migration policies may cover various
areas including the labour market, integration, and humanitarian/asylum, family, co-ethnic, and
irregular migration. IOM’s Migration Governance Framework (MiGOF) defines migration

38
policy as the “law and policy affecting the movement of people” and includes policy on “travel
and temporary mobility, immigration, emigration, nationality, labour markets, economic and
social development, industry, commerce, social cohesion, social services, health, education, law
enforcement, foreign policy, trade and humanitarian” issues (IOM, 2017).
The expansion of international migration has led to policy convergences as well as
interdependences among states regarding the monitoring, encouragement, and discouragement
of cross-border emigration and immigration.
The first attempts to develop an international migration regime beyond the area of forced
migration occurred in the 1990s. Both internal migration and international migration presented
serious challenges to global economic transformation; these challenges were discussed at the
UN Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994. A Global Commission on
International Migration, which was established in 2003, published its final report in 2005.
According to this report, the international regulation of migration, which involves the
purposeful movement of human beings, is more demanding than the management of the
movement of inanimate objects. The report recommended the creation of an interinstitutional
group of international agencies involved in migration- related activities. In response, the Global
Migration Group was established in 2006.
The Global Migration Group comprises UN agencies such as the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees and the International Labour Organization along with the International Organization
for Migration. The latter does not belong to the UN system, yet it has been playing an
increasing role in the development of global migration policies in the past decade.
The migration policies be it international, regional or national are differed based on different
contexts and political ideologies. migration policies are not homogenous, but typically consist
of a ‘mixed bag’ of policy measures targeting different migrant groups and policy categories in
various ways. This means that migration policies can be contradictory and incoherent ‘by
design’, because they are influenced by different ideologies and interests.
Some studies suggest that left-wing parties are pro-immigration and right-wing parties’ anti-
immigration policies, there are good reasons to question this widespread assumption. For
instance, in the 1950s and 1960s, right-wing and centrist parties often favored labour (‘guest-
worker’) immigration from Mediterranean countries to Western Europe under the influence of
industry lobbies. Left-wing parties and trade unions were often more wary towards labour

39
 immigration, because this was seen as undermining the position of native workers. At the same
time, left-wing parties seemed to play a more proactive role in defending the socioeconomic and
citizenship rights of already-entered migrants, also to prevent their presence allegedly causing a
downward pressure on wages and employment conditions of native workers.
On the other hand, liberal parties have to accommodate conflicts between unions who generally
favor restrictive policies and liberal and ethnic groups who tend to favor more open policies;
while conservative parties are divided between employers favoring immigration and cultural
conservatives asking for immigration restrictions.

The DPI database interestingly suggests that center governments have overall enacted the most
liberal policies, while left-wing governments have enacted comparably more restrictive policies,
although the average direction of changes remains consistently in a liberal direction. Using the
CPDS values, we find a non-linear pattern, in which left-wing dominated governments have
enacted the most liberal policies, surprisingly followed by right-wing only governments. Right-
wing dominated governments seem to be comparatively most restrictive, as this is the only
government composition where the number of liberal and restrictive changes is more or less in
balance.

Typologies of Migration Policies

Early typologies of migration policies differentiated between national policy types and those
focused primarily on the global North. The main distinction was between “traditional” and
“new” or “reluctant” immigration countries. “Traditional” immigration countries, that is, the
United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, comparatively early on developed
legislative and administrative frameworks regulating permanent immigration.
The migration policies of “new” immigration countries, that is, most western European
countries, were shaped by histories of emigration and, in some cases, by colonial legacies.
Regulations were developed later in new immigration countries than in traditional immigration
countries. “Reluctant” immigration states had to deal with the unplanned and undesired
permanent settlement of labor immigrants.
Closure and opening periods of contemporary regulation/policies of migration
Openness Closure
1800 Demographic growth 1887– Great deflation: protectionism
– 50 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Europe’s

40
 population 1910 1873– 1896: Deep economic crisis, in both
was approximately 195 million. industry and agriculture. In continental
Europe, fear of foreigners increased. The
role of immigration in nation- state building
was denied.
1870 Imperialism: The safety- valve theory was used to 1911 United States Immigration Commission
– justify migration. France and Great Britain had to Report: The historical investigation of
1914 justify the costs of colonialism. migration began
Agricultural crisis: Historiography justified
migration cycles on the basis of
economic crisis, especially in the last quarter of the
nineteenth century.
1921– Ethnic selection
24 1921: Quota Act
1924: Quota Act (Johnson- Reed Act)
1922: Benito Mussolini and fascism
1946 Managing migration: In August 1946, the IOM 1929– Economic crisis and totalitarianism
Permanent Migration Committee met for the first 45 1929: Wall Street Crash Migration was
time. To revise the 1939 Convention and restricted. The number of exiles from
Recommendation concerning migration for totalitarian regimes and among persecuted
employment, establishing international cooperation people increased.
to facilitate an organized resumption of migration,
and dealing with the issue of refugees and displaced
persons.
1951 Geneva Refugee Convention: It defines the term 1950– Economic boom: Several European
‘refugee’ and outlines the rights of the displaced, as 65 countries signed bilateral agreements on
well as the legal obligations of states to protect international migration
1957 European Economic Community (EEC): In 1952, 1973– Oil crisis: The economic crisis brought the
– 58 the European Coal and Steel Community was 77 Fordist model into question and led to
established. structural economic reforms throughout
The Treaty of Rome (1957, came into force on 1 much of the Western world.
January 1958) established the EEC. Labour
migration was regulated.
1980 Structural reforms: Economic restructuring across 1986 In addition to the SEA Crime and illegal

41
 much of the Western world began in the wake of the
oil crisis. Italy avoided economic restructuring,
instead increasing public expenditures excessively.
1985 Schengen Agreements between Five EU countries.
The establishment of the ‘Schengen Area’ abolished
internal borders between countries and increased
control over their external borders.
1986 Single European Act (SEA) on free movement:
The SEA established as an EEC goal the creation of
an internal market that would ‘comprise an area
without internal frontiers in which the free
movement of goods, persons, services and capital is
ensured’.
1992 Maastricht Treaty: established the EU, which
enabled the free movement of goods, people, and
capital.
1995 Schengen Convention: Free movement for
European citizens within the EU begins.
2000 Migration Report: Data from an ILO preliminary
report and UNDP research on
European demographic conditions indicated that 70
million migrants are needed over the next 50 years to
maintain current living standards.
2002 Introduction of the single currency: The euro
became currency in 12 EU countries (1 January
2002)
42
immigration became issues; working groups
were set up to prevent the negative
consequences of open borders.
1990 Dublin Convention: In order to prevent
‘asylum shopping’ among asylum
applicants, the Dublin Convention
determined EU states’ responsibility for
examining asylum applications.
1991– Yugoslav wars
95 Refugee flows to Western Europe increased.
1997 Treaty of Amsterdam: was signed in 1997
and came into effect in 1999. EU member
states committed to adopting flanking
measures with respect to external border
controls, immigration, and asylum.
2001 Treaty of Nice: expanded the co- decision
procedure between the European
Commission and Parliament. It extended
Qualified Majority Voting in the European
Council.
2003 Dublin II Regulation: This regulation
establishes the principle that only one
EU member state is responsible for
examining an asylum application.
2008 Financial crisis: Many analysts considered
this crisis comparable to the 1929 crisis.
Present Migration vs capitalism: Anti- migration
 parties, movements, and governments
have emerged in the wake of the 2008 crisis.
The classical opposition of left vs right has
been replaced by one of closed vs. open
borders. Migrants are considered a threat.

2.5.1. The Determinants of Migration Policies

GDP growth per capita has a significant negative, liberalizing effect on (low-skilled) labour
immigration policies in the first model specification using the DPI data, and a negative, but
insignificant effect in the second model specification using the CPDS data. Yet, interestingly,
GDP growth also has a significant liberalizing effect on policies towards refugees and asylum
seekers in both model specifications. It is unclear what explains this effect, but it is possible that
in times of economic growth, there may be less public pressure to contain immigration and,
perhaps, a greater willingness to accept refugees. Furthermore, high unemployment rates
increase the restrictiveness of policies towards high-skilled migrants and students in both model
specifications, but have no significant effect on policies targeting other migrants. Previous
immigration levels have a strong and significant restrictive effect on family migration policies
in both model specifications. Although it is unclear what mechanisms explain this effect, high
recent migration levels possibly lead to a backlash in the rights towards family reunification in
order to prevent ‘chain migration’. These analyses highlight the complexity of the mechanisms
through which economic and migration trends feed (back) into migration policies, as well as the
necessity of focusing on specific migrant categories and policy areas separately to dissect such
trends.
Political system variables also play out differently according to the migrant category targeted by
policies. Weakly federal systems (using non-federal states as a reference category) are
significantly associated with less restrictive policies towards all groups except labour migrants.
However, strong levels of federalism (again as compared to non-federal states) are only
signficantly associated with more liberal policies towards family migrants in both model
specifications. It is not clear what explains this non-linear association. Proportional
representation systems are associated with more restrictive policies towards family migrants,

43
irregular migrants and asylum seekers. This may suggest that these three policy fields are
particularly subject to inter-party discussions influenced by small parties at the very right or left
of the political spectrum that push policies in a more restrictive direction compared to countries
with a first-past-the-post electoral rule. The effects of the polarization of the political
institutions, however, yields difficult-to-interpret results. While polarized systems are
significantly associated to more liberal family migration polices, they are associated to
significantly more restrictive policies towards the higher-skilled and students in both model
specifications. However, in strongly polarized systems this association disappears for the higher
skilled and students, and turns positive (more liberal) for family migrants. As with federalism,
this association seems to be non-linear.

The World Population Policies Database (UN DESA) provides information on the views and
policy priorities of 197 countries. It covers 29 indicators across various population policy areas,
including immigration and emigration, age structure, fertility, health and mortality, spatial
distribution and internal migration. The database is updated biennially, with the last update
having been made in 2015. In 2013, UN DESA released an International Migration Policies
Report that was based on data in the World Population Policies Database as well as the Global
Migration Database. The report provides information on levels and trends in international
migration, and on policies to influence the level of immigration, promote the immigration of
highly skilled workers, and foster the integration and naturalization of immigrants into the host
communities. Data also include information on policies designed by Governments in countries
of origin, such as policies on emigration, acceptance of dual citizenship, policies to encourage
the return of citizens, and measures to promote involvement of diaspora in countries of
origin. The response rate by countries can ranges depending on the year and survey question.

The UN Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development contains a migration

module that is jointly administered by UN DESA and IOM with the support of OECD, to
collect country-level data on Sustainable Development Goals SDGs indicator 10.7.2 (Number
of countries with migration policies to facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible
migration and mobility of people). It is based on IOM´s MiGOF as well as some insights from
the MGI so it is comparable to the MGI but goes less into depth as it only includes scores,
whereas the MGI include the text justifying the rationale behind the scores.

44
Determinants of International Migration (DEMIG) POLICY tracks more than 6,500
migration policy changes enacted by 45 countries from 1945 to 2013, thus also including
countries from outside Western Europe and Northern America. DEMIG accesses policies using
51 indicators and codes them according to the policy area and migrant group targeted, as well as
the change in restrictiveness they introduce in the existing legal system.

The Migration Governance Indicators (MGI) form a framework to assess the

comprehensiveness of countries’ migration policies and to help identify gaps and priorities to
build institutional capacity and programs on migration. The MGI covers 84 countries and 90
indicators, and is based on the six dimensions of good migration governance in IOM’s
Migration Governance Framework (MiGOF), the first and so far only internationally agreed
definition for “well-managed migration policies”. These six policy dimensions are: migrants’
rights, institutional capacity, regional and international cooperation, socioeconomic well-being
of migrants, mobility dimensions of crises, and safe and orderly migration. The framework is
being applied in a growing number of volunteering countries. One of the aims of the MGI is to
help countries develop baseline assessments and conduct future reviews of their work in the
context of the SDGs and the Global Compact on Migration.

The Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC) project developed a set of 69

sophisticated quantitative indicators to measure immigration policies in all (33) OECD
countries for the period 1980 to 2010. Policy areas include labour migration, asylum claims and
refugees, family reunification, and the migration of those with a shared colonial history,
language, religion and/or ancestry, (also known as “co-ethnic migration”). Various sub-
dimensions in each policy category are taken into account, including eligibility, conditions,
security of status and associated rights.

The International Migration Policy and Law Analysis (IMPALA) project compiles
comparable data on immigration law and policy in over 25 countries of immigration between
1960 and 2010. Data cover all major categories of immigration law and policy, such as the
acquisition of citizenship, economic migration, family reunification, permanent immigration,
temporary migration, asylum and refugee protection, and policies relating to undocumented
migration and border control.

45
With a much more confined geographical focus, Cerna´s Index measures policy openness and
restrictiveness targeting highly skilled immigrants for 20 countries in 2007 and 2012. Ortega
and Peri´s Index studies the effects of policy restrictions on immigration flows for 14 countries
between 1980 and 2005. Both these indices can thus be compared to the DEMIG project
approach that focused on restrictions as well, but Cerna´s and Ortega and Peri´s approaches are
much smaller in scope both thematically and geographically.

OECD’s Policy and Institutional Coherence for Migration and Development (PICMD)
dashboard measures the extent to which public policies and institutional arrangements are
coherent with international best practices to minimize the risks and maximize the development
gains of migration. The dashboard of indicators is grouped into five policy dimensions:
institutional coherence, reducing the cost of migration, protecting the rights of migrants and
families, promoting integration and reintegration, and enhancing the development impact of
migration. The pilot project includes 10 countries with plans to expand to 20-25 countries.

A related index, the Migration Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), also measures migration
governance but focuses on integration policies instead of migration policies in 38 receiving
countries. Some of its variables have been taken up in the MGI, and the overall MIPEX can be
used as a complimentary data set to understand migration governance of a specific subfield that
the MIPEX uniquely and extensively covers.

The Citizenship Law (CITLAW) database measures the degree of inclusion and freedom of
choice for non-nationals in acquiring citizenship, while the Electoral Law
(ELECLAW) database measures the degree of inclusion of the electoral voting rights and
uniquely covering the right to stand for candidacy for non-resident citizens (emigrants) and
resident non-citizens (immigrants). Both the CITLAW and the ELECLAW data sets are
comparable to some of the indicators in the MGI and can serve to cross-check information. The
EMIX database studies "emigrant policies" of Latin American and Caribbean origin countries,
including ties with their diaspora population and thus provides another piece in the migration
governance puzzle across regions and topics.

46
2.5.2. International standards governing migration policy
Existing legal instruments provide a comprehensive legal framework for the governance of
international migration. Well-defined rules address the treatment of a range of migrants
including, among others: migrant women, men, children, refugees, stateless persons, migrant
workers, and migrant victims of trafficking.
The bodies of international law which provide the basis for national migration laws, policies
and practice include: international human rights law, international labour law and standards,
international refugee law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law,
international consular law, and international maritime law.
Based on these laws States have an obligation to migrants to respect, protect, and fulfill their
human rights.
 Respecting human rights means refraining from human rights violations, and in the
migration, context includes refraining from arbitrary detention, torture, or collective
expulsion of migrants.
 The obligation to protect human rights requires States to prevent human rights
violations by other actors. With regard to migrants, this means that States should, for
example, regulate recruitment agencies, sanction abusive employers, protect migrants
from violence and abuse by smugglers, and take action against xenophobia and hatred.
 Fulfilling human rights requires taking positive measures to ensure the realization of
those rights, such as, for migrants, introducing alternatives to detention, and
guaranteeing access to healthcare, education, and other social services.
Realizing human rights in migration policy also means incorporating certain cross-
cutting human rights principles, including:

 Equality and non-discrimination: The principle of non-discrimination prohibits

distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference on the basis of a list of non-exhaustive
grounds such as race, colour, descent, ethnic origin, sex, age, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, disability, religion or belief, nationality, migration or residence status or
other status. States should address direct and indirect discrimination against and unequal
treatment of people in laws, policies and practices, including by paying particular
attention to the needs of migrants in vulnerable situations.

47
  Participation and inclusion: Everyone is entitled to active, free and meaningful
participation in decisions that affect the enjoyment of their rights. All people have the
right to access information, in a language and format accessible to them, regarding the
decision-making processes that affect their lives and well-being. This means that
migrants should be consulted and included in the development of relevant public policy.
 Accountability and rule of law: Everyone is entitled to claim and exercise their rights.
States should ensure transparency in the design and implementation of their policies and
must ensure that rights-holders have access to mechanisms of redress and to enjoy
effective remedies when human rights breaches occur. The system governing migration
should allow migrants full access to justice, including redress and remedies if they
experience human rights violations.

2.5.3. Influential Regional Policies/Laws and their link with International

Policies/Laws?
International human rights instruments bind States to abide by international principles when
drafting legislation and policies that affect the welfare of migrants, but it is the sovereign right
of States to regulate the entry of aliens with the terms and conditions of their stay.
In addition to the international instruments adopted under the auspices of the UN and ILO, the
protection of human rights is the subject of a number of regional treaties, namely the American
Convention on Human Rights (ACHR),1969, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights, 1981, the League of Arab States Charter on Human Rights, 2004, and the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, as well as
their related Protocols. There are also a number of specific regional and sub-regional
instruments, adopted in the form of legally binding agreements or non-binding declarations, or
expressing regional policy with regard to migration.
Regional differences exist regarding the acceptance of key instruments on the protection of
international migrants. While the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
enjoy general acceptance with ratification by 144 countries, many Member States are not yet
inclined to ratify the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of their Families. Effective implementation of the Convention could face serious
difficulties if not widely accepted.

48
The majority of African countries have ratified the key instruments regarding international
migration. In the Americas, many countries have ratified the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and
Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and the Protocol against the
Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. There is also general acceptance for the
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their
Families, and at present, 15 countries in the region have ratified it. Countries in the Asia and
Pacific region have made a significant step towards the adoption of regulations and policies that
affect the welfare of migrants by ratifying international conventions on the protection of
migrants.
The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons and the Protocol against
Smuggling of Migrants, both adopted in 2000, have been ratified by 20 countries in the region,
indicating the strong commitment of governments to combating such crimes. As in other
regions, ratification of the Migrant Workers Convention is fairly low compared to other core
UN conventions. Currently, 8 countries have ratified it in the region.
Despite disappointing levels of ratification, the Migrant Workers Convention still has a
significant meaning within international law, as it is the broadest framework for the protection
of migrants’ rights and for guidance of States on how to develop migration policies while
respecting the rights of migrants. The entry into force of the 1990 Migrant Workers Convention
in 2003 allows it to be cited as an authoritative standard. In practice, this has made it an
instrument of reference for non-ratifying countries as well as States Parties, even those that have
not agreed to be bound by its standards.
In addition, some world regions have independent human rights bodies, connected to regional
inter-governmental bodies, while others are covered by regional offices of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The OHCHR maintains regional offices for
Central Africa, Eastern Africa, Southern Africa, Western Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia,
the Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East regions, each of which has its own migration
streams and issues.
Africa:
In 1969, the Organization of African Unity created a new treaty to broaden the United Nations
definition of “refugee” to include, “every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation,
foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his

49
country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to
seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality.” In 1981, Member
States of the Organization of African Unity adopted the African Charter on Human and People’s
Rights, which entered into force in 1986, to promote and protect human and people’s rights.
The Charter also established the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is
charged with ensuring the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights throughout
the African continent, complemented and reinforced by the African Court on Human and
Peoples’ Rights. Since 2004, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has had a
Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers, Internally Displaced Persons and Migrants in
Africa. The African Special Rapporteur has monitored and reported on violations of the human
rights of migrants and asylum seekers, as well as engaged in promotional activities with States
in the region.
The Americas:
Over the years, countries in the Americas have adopted numerous international instruments
which became the building blocks of a regional system for the promotion and protection of
human rights. The very beginning was the American Declaration of the Rights and the Duties of
Man, approved in 1948 creating the Organization of American States (OAS). This declaration
constituted the initial system of protection.
In 1959, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was created to monitor
observance of the rights stipulated in the American Convention. The Inter- American Council of
Jurists was entrusted with the preparation of a draft convention on human rights and the creation
of an inter-American court for the protection of human rights. In 1969, the OAS convened an
Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights which adopted the American
Convention on Human Rights.
In 1984, the Inter-American Commission broadened the definition of refugee applicable in the
region through its Cartagena Declaration to include: “persons who have fled their country
because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign
aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which
have seriously disturbed public order.”
Since 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has appointed one of its own
Commissioners as Special Rapporteur on Migrant Workers and their Families.

50
Asia and Pacific:
Despite the growth of international migration in Asia and the Pacific, protecting the rights of
migrants remains on the fringes of discussion. A notable shortcoming in policy debates has been
the rights of migrant workers. While there are bilateral agreements between some countries of
origin and destination in the region, mostly through memoranda of understanding, these
primarily regulate the movement of workers and have little impact on the treatment that migrant
workers receive in the country of employment.
Europe:
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was
drawn up within the Council of Europe. It entered into force in 1953. All 47 members of the
Council of Europe are signatories of the Convention.
Besides laying down a catalogue of civil and political rights and freedoms, the Convention set
up a mechanism for the enforcement of obligations entered into by Contracting States. Three
institutions were entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the obligations: the European
Commission on Human Rights (1954), the European Court of Human Rights (1959) and the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs
of the Members States or their respective representatives.
The European Court has developed an extensive jurisprudence on the human rights of migrants,
applying both European law and treaties as well as international human rights documents
including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention and Protocol Relating
to the Status of Refugees. Its decisions cover issues ranging from the relative weight to be
accorded the right to family unity and the power to deport as well as decisions interpreting the
meaning of “refugee.

CHAPTER THREE

51
 HUMAN SECURITY: CONCEPTS, ORIGIN, THEORIES, &
APPROACHES

3.1. The Concept and Origin of Human Security

3.1.1. Definitions of Human Security
The dominant concept of security, traditionally, was state centric, extending support and
legitimacy to instruments of states and upholding the principle of state sovereignty. Plato’s
Ideal state, Aristotle’s Statesman, Hobbs ‘concept of Leviathan, Machiavelli’s Prince and
above all Marxian concept of Dictatorship of the proletariat highlight the ultimate goal or end
of state as security and protection of individual and community, even though they have different
views about the means to attain this goal.
But neither of these theories gave an independent identity and existence to human security nor
did they develop conceptual framework on human security. Instead, security was conceived as
an integral part of national security which put emphasis on military centric solutions to security
related issues.
Human security is the state of protectedness of a human from dangers, threats, and violations of
their personality, rights, and property. Human security is usually understood in the spirit of the
United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report from 1994 where it is
defined as “the human survival and dignity through freedom from fear (violence) and freedom
from want (poverty)” and as “human security from all possible forms of threats, primarily
threats to life, health, earning, personal security, and human dignity”.
The CHS, in its final report Human Security Now, defines human security as: “…to protect the
vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment.
Human security means protecting fundamental freedoms – freedoms that are the essence of life.
It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and
situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations. It means
creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together
give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity.”
Overall, the definition proposed by the CHS re-conceptualizes security in a fundamental way
by:

52
 I. Moving away from traditional, state-centric conceptions of security that focused
primarily on the safety of states from military aggression, to one that concentrates on the
security of the individuals, their protection and empowerment;
II. Drawing attention to a multitude of threats that cut across different aspects of human life
and thus, highlighting the interface between security, development and human rights;
and
III. Promoting a new integrated, coordinated and people-centered approach to advancing
peace, security and development within and across nations.

3.1.2. Historical Background and Rational of Human Security

The concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly: as security of territory from
external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security
from the threat of a nuclear holocaust. It has been related more to nation-states than to people.
The superpowers were locked in an ideological struggle fighting a cold war all over the world.
The developing nations, having won their independence only recently, were sensitive to any real
or perceived threats to their fragile national identities. Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of
ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives. For many of them, security symbolized
protection from the threat of disease, hunger, unemployment, crime, social conflict, political
repression and environmental hazards. With the dark shadows of the cold war receding, one can
now see that many conflicts are within nations rather than between nations.
For most people, a feeling of insecurity arises more from worries about daily life than from the
dread of a cataclysmic world event. Will they and their families have enough to eat? Will they
lose their jobs? Will their streets and neighborhoods be safe from crime? Will they be tortured
by a repressive state? Will they become a victim of violence because of their gender? Will their
religion or ethnic origin target them for persecution?
In the final analysis, human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a
job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not
silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons-it is a concern with human life and
dignity. The idea of human security, though simple, is likely to revolutionize society in the 21st
century.
The concept of security must thus change urgently in two basic ways:

53
 o From an exclusive stress on territorial security to a much greater stress on people's
security.
o From security through armaments to security through sustainable human
development.
In 1992, Boutros-Boutros Ghali’s Agenda for Peace makes the first explicit reference of human
security within the UN. In this report, the concept was used in relation to preventative
diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping and post-conflict recovery. The report drew attention to
the broad scope of challenges in post-conflict settings and highlighted the need to address root
causes of conflict through a common international moral perception and a wide network of
actors under “an integrated approach to human security”.

In 1994, the UNDP Human Development Report was the seminal text to stress the need for
human security, broadly defining it as ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’. The 1994
HDR further characterized human security as “safety from chronic threats such as hunger,
disease, and repression as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the
patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities” (UNDP, 1994:23).

In the late 1990s, human security was adopted by Secretary-General Kofi Annan as part of the
new UN mandate in the 1999 Millennium Declaration and his call at the 2000 UN Millennium
Summit, addressing the international community to work towards the advancement of the twin
objectives of ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’.

In 1999, the Government of Japan and the UN launched the United Nations Trust Fund for
Human Security (UNTFHS), taking a concrete step towards operationalizing the concept. The
UNTFHS has been primarily funded by the government of Japan with the governments of
Slovenia and Thailand joining the Fund since 2007. The UNTFHS funds projects relating to key
thematic human security areas, such as, post-conflict peace-building, persistent and chronic
poverty, disaster risk reduction, human trafficking and food security. Projects are selected with
a view to further “translate the concept of human security into operational activities that provide
concrete and sustainable benefits to peoples and communities threatened in their survival,
livelihood and dignity.”

54
Meanwhile, in 1999, a number of additional governments joined efforts to engage with the
concept as part of the Human Security Network (HSN). Launched by Canada, the Network
comprises a total of twelve ‘like-minded’ countries - Austria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica,
Greece, Ireland, Jordan, Mali, Norway, Switzerland, Slovenia, Thailand and South Africa as an
observer. Committed to applying the human security perspective to international problems, the
Network’s efforts include steps towards the application of human security, including the Ottawa
Convention on Anti-personnel Landmines and the establishment of the International Criminal
Court (ICC).

In 2000, in contribution to the above efforts and in direct response to the Secretary-General’s
call at the Millennium Summit, the independent Commission on Human Security (CHS) was
established under the chairmanship of Sadako Ogata, former UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, and Amartya Sen, Nobel Economics Prize Laureate (1998). Aiming to mobilize
support and provide a concrete framework for the operationalization of human security, in 2003,
the CHS produced its final report Human Security Now. The report offers a working definition
of human security and reaches a number of respective policy conclusions covering issues such
as violent conflict, small arms, refugees and internally displaced persons, post-conflict recovery,
health, poverty, trade and education.

Following the conclusion of the activities of the CHS and as per its recommendations, the
Advisory Board on Human Security (ABHS) was created as an advisory body to the Secretary
General and to follow-up the policy recommendations of the CHS. In specific, the ABHS has
undertaken the role to:
I. Advise the UN Secretary-General on issues relating to the management of the
UNTFHS,
II. Further promote the human security concept and
III. Increase the impact of human security projects funded by the Trust Fund.
The ABHS has been instrumental in the establishment, in 2004, of the Human Security Unit
(HSU) at the UN Secretariat in the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA). The overall objective of the Unit is twofold:
(i) Management of the UNTFHS and

55
 (ii) The development of the Trust Fund into a major vehicle for the acceptance and
advancement of human security within and outside the UN.
Since its establishment in 1999, the UNTFHS has funded more than 175 projects in
approximately 70 countries.

Broader Acceptance of Human Security

Further to the establishment of the HSU, in 2004, the UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel
on Threats, Challenges and Change has significantly reinforced the utility and relevance of
human security. The report makes extensive use of the concept within a broader agenda of
requisite institutional reforms to respond to the new threats of the 21st century. In
acknowledging the broadened nature and interrelatedness of security challenges, it stresses the
need to address human security along with state security and draws strong links between
development and conflict.

In 2005, in his final proposal for UN reforms within his report In Larger Freedom, Kofi Annan,
albeit not making specific reference to the term human security, uses its three components,
namely ‘freedom from fear’, ‘freedom from want’ and ‘freedom to live in dignity’ as the main
thematic principles of the report.

More recently, the adoption of the Outcome of the 2005 World Summit by the General
Assembly has been pivotal in further raising awareness and interest in the concept of human
security. Paragraph 143 of the Outcome Document (A/RES/60/1) recognizes that “all
individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from
want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy their rights and fully develop their human potential”.

In parallel, the creation of the Friends of Human Security (FHS), as “a flexible and open-ended
informal group of supporters of human security” shows a commitment by states and
international organizations to engage with the concept in line with the CHS definition and
disseminate it on the ground. So far, the FHS has held four meetings (October 2006, April 2007,
November 2007 and May 2008) discussing human security in relation to issues such as: climate
change, peacebuilding, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the global food crisis,
human rights education and gender-based violence. The fourth FHS meeting has been followed
by two additional events of significant contribution to the propagation of human security: (i) the

56
General Assembly Informal Thematic Debate on Human Security organized by the President of
the GA on 22 May 2008 in New York and (ii) the HSN Ministerial meeting chaired by the
Government of Greece in Athens on 29-30 May 2008.

Similarly, as outlined in the follow-up document7, a multitude of UN agencies and departments

have implemented more than 175 human security projects worldwide. These projects cover a
wide range of issues including: protection and reintegration of refugees, post-conflict
peacebuilding, prevention of human trafficking, women’s empowerment, food and health
security, socio-economic security for vulnerable communities as well as activities to further
promote the concept of human security.

Developments at the international level are similarly reflected in the agendas and policy debates
among regional organizations such as the African Union, the European Union, the Association
of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Organization of American States (OAS) and the
League of Arab States (LAS), where contemporary challenges – from hunger, poverty and
failing schools to armed conflict, human trafficking and international terrorism – highlight the
need for comprehensive, integrated and people-centered solutions.

Why Human Security Now?

As argued by the Commission on Human Security (CHS), the need for a new paradigm of
security is associated with two sets of dynamics:
First, human security is needed in response to the complexity and the interrelatedness of both
old and new security threats – from chronic and persistent poverty to ethnic violence, human
trafficking, climate change, health pandemics, international terrorism, and sudden economic and
financial downturns. Such threats tend to acquire transnational dimensions and move beyond
traditional notions of security that focus on external military aggressions alone.
Second, human security is required as a comprehensive approach that utilizes the wide range of
new opportunities to tackle such threats in an integrated manner. Human security threats cannot
be tackled through conventional mechanisms alone. Instead, they require a new consensus that
acknowledges the linkages and the interdependencies between development, human rights and
national security.

57
 III.1.3 What are the main features of Human Security?
Human security brings together the ‘human elements’ of security, rights and development. As
such, it is an inter-disciplinary concept that displays the following characteristics:
⸙ People-centered
⸙ Multi-sectoral
⸙ Comprehensive
⸙ Context-specific
⸙ Prevention-oriented
People-centered: - human security places the individual at the ‘center of analysis.’
Consequently, it considers a broad range of conditions which threaten survival, livelihood and
dignity, and identifies the threshold below which human life is intolerably threatened.
Multi-sectoral: - human security entails a broadened understanding of threats and includes
causes of insecurity relating for instance to economic, food, health, environmental, personal,
community and political security. security entails a broadened understanding of threats and
includes causes of insecurity relating for instance to economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community and political security.
Possible Types of Human Security Threats
Type of Security Examples of Main Threats
Economic security Persistent poverty, unemployment
Food security Hunger, famine
Health security Deadly infectious diseases, unsafe food, malnutrition, lack of access
to basic health care
Environmental Environmental degradation, resource depletion, natural disasters,
security pollution
Personal security Physical violence, crime, terrorism, domestic violence, child labor
Community security Inter-ethnic, religious and other identity-based tensions
Political security Political repression, human rights abuses

Moreover, human security emphasizes the interconnectedness of both threats and responses
when addressing these insecurities. That is, threats to human security are mutually reinforcing
and interconnected in two ways. First, they are interlinked in a domino effect in the sense that

58
each threat feeds on the other. For example, violent conflicts can lead to deprivation and poverty
which in turn could lead to resource depletion, infectious diseases, education deficits, etc.
Second, threats within a given country or area can spread into a wider region and have negative
externalities for regional and international security.
This interdependence has important implications for policy-making as it implies that human
insecurities cannot be tackled in isolation through fragmented stand-alone responses.
Comprehensiveness: human security involves comprehensive approaches that stress the need
for cooperative and multisectoral responses that bring together the agendas of those dealing with
security, development and human rights. “With human security [as] the objective, there must be
a stronger and more integrated response from communities and states around the globe” (CHS:
2003: 2).
Context-specific concept: human security acknowledges that insecurities vary considerably
across different settings and as such advances contextualized solutions that are responsive to the
particular situations they seek to address.
Prevention oriented: in addressing risks and root causes of insecurities, human security is
focus on prevention and introduces a dual focus on protection and empowerment.

Human Security Principles and Approach

From an operational perspective, human security aims to address complex situations of
insecurity through collaborative, responsive and sustainable measures that are (i) people-
centered, (ii) multisectoral, (iii) comprehensive, (iv) context-specific, and (v) prevention-
oriented. In addition, human security employs a hybrid approach that brings together these
elements through a protection and empowerment framework. Subsequently each human security
principle informs the human security approach and must be integrated into the design of a
human security program.
HS Principle HS Approach
People-centered  Inclusive and participatory.
 Considers individuals and communities in defining their
needs/vulnerabilities and in acting as active agents of change.
 Collectively determines which insecurities to address and identifies the
available resources including local assets and indigenous coping

59
 mechanisms.
Multi-sectoral  Addresses multi-sectorality by promoting dialogue among key actors
from different sectors/fields.
 Helps to ensure coherence and coordination across traditionally
separate sectors/fields.
 Assesses positive and negative externalities of each response on the
overall human security situation of the affected community(ies).
Comprehensive  Holistic analysis: the seven security components of human security.
 Addresses the wide spectrum of threats, vulnerabilities and capacities.
 Analysis of actors and sectors not previously considered relevant to the
success of a policy/program/project.
 Develops multi-sectoral/multi-actor responses.
Context-specific  Requires in-depth analysis of the targeted situation.
 Focuses on a core set of freedoms and rights under threat in a given
situation.
 Identifies the concrete needs of the affected community(ies) and
enables the development of more appropriate solutions that are
embedded in local realities, capacities and coping mechanisms.
 Takes into account local, national, regional and global dimensions and
their impact on the targeted situation.
Prevention-oriented  Identifies risks, threats and hazards, and addresses their root causes.
 Focuses on preventative responses through a protection and
empowerment framework.

3.1.3. Components of Human Security and Strategies Needed

Human security Strategies to enhance protection and Capacities needed
Components empowerment
Economic security:  Assured access to basic income  Economic capital
Having an assured  Public and private sector  Human capital
basic income- employment, wage employment,  Public finance
usually from self-employment  Financial reserves
productive and  When necessary, government  Diversified agriculture and

60
remunerative work, financed social safety nets economy
 Diversify agriculture and economy
Food security:  Entitlement to food, by growing it  Diversified agriculture and
having access both themselves, having the ability to economy
physical and purchase it or through a public food  Local and national
economic to basic distribution system distribution systems
food at all times.
Health security  Access to basic health care and  Universal basic education
health services and knowledge on health
 Risk-sharing arrangements that pool related matters
membership funds and promote  Indigenous/traditional health
community-based insurance schemes practices
 Interconnected surveillance systems  Access to information and
to identify disease outbreaks at all community-based knowledge
levels creation
Environmental  Sustainable practices that take into  Natural resource capital
security: rely on a account natural resource and  Natural environmental
healthy physical environmental degradation recovery processes (e.g.
environment (deforestation, desertification) forests recovering from fires,
 Early warning and response natural barriers to storm
mechanisms for natural hazards action)
and/or man-made disasters at all  Biodiversity
levels  Indigenous/traditional
practices that respect the
environment
Personal security:  Rule of law  Coping mechanisms
security from  Explicit and enforced protection of  Adaptive strategies
physical violence. human rights and civil liberties  Memory of past disasters
Community  Explicit and enforced protection of  Social capital
security: security ethnic groups and community  Coping mechanisms
from their identity  Adaptive strategies

61
membership in a  Protection from oppressive  Memory of past disasters
group traditional practices, harsh treatment  Local non-governmental
towards women, or discrimination organizations or traditional
again ethnic/indigenous/refugee organisms
groups
Political security:  Protection of human rights  Good governance
people should be  Protection from military  Ethical standards
able to live in a dictatorships and abuse  Local leadership
society that honors  Protection from political or state  Accountability mechanisms
their basic human repression, torture, ill treatment,
rights. unlawful detention and
imprisonment

3.1.4. Pillars of human security

Freedom from fear related with (personal, political, and community security, etc.). it refers to
protecting individuals from threats directed at their security and physical integrity and includes
various forms of violence that may arise from external States, the acts of a State against its
citizens, the acts of one group against others and the acts of individuals against other
individuals.
Freedom from want related with (economic, food, health, environmental security, etc.). it
refers to the protection of individuals so that they might satisfy their basic needs and the
economic, social and environmental aspects of life and livelihoods.
Freedom from indignities related with (education, access to freedoms, equality, human rights,
community security, political security, etc.). it refers to the promotion of an improved quality of
life and enhancement of human welfare that permits people to make choices and seek
opportunities for that empower them.

62
3.1.5. The Vital Core of Human Security
The Vital Core of human security represents a set of key interests, values and needs of people
that need to be protected. The term ‘vital core’ appears as a fusion of two terms “vital interests”
and “core values” (Baldwin, 1997 and Bajpai, 2000) and it appeared for the first time in the
article of Sabina Alkire “A conceptual framework for Human Security” in 2003.The objective of
human security is to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats,
in a way that is consistent with long-term human fulfilment.

The vital core refers to rights and freedoms that pertain to survival, to livelihood and basic
dignity. It is a basic but multidimensional set of human rights and human freedoms based in
practical reason. It spans the freedom from fear and freedom from want and it needs to be
specified by appropriate procedures in any given context (Alkire, 2003).

Thus, the idea of vital core attempts to encapsulate the level below which individuals are not
able to lead tolerable lives. The availability of healthy food and clean water, a roof over one’s
head, employment, a clean environment, public health and the freedom to worship are just some
of the examples of the Vital Core. However, it is important to keep in mind that vital core is
highly contextual – what prevents people to live tolerable lives depends upon the context as well
as how people experience and perceive their insecurity. Due to this contextual relativity the
concept sometimes lacks precision. This imprecision is often the reason why human security

63
was seen as impractical or insufficiently defined in relation to traditional security or classic
international relations between states.

Official discourses of the United Nations (0101) and European Union (0103) have developed in
parallel with this conceptual discourse. Moreover, an expression of the Vital Core has been
mentioned in the preamble for ‘Human Security Now’, the report which was signed by the
Commission for Human Security. The Commission’s definition of human security is: to protect
the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human
fulfilment (HS Now, 2013).

Vital core is important for both human security and human development. While human
development is concerned with expanding the individual’s capabilities and opportunities,
human security is concerned with enabling individuals to avert threats to their lives, livelihoods
and dignity. Therefore, human security can be seen as the “rearguard” of human development
(UNDP, 2009) Human development is open-ended, as people can develop their capabilities and
opportunities continuously and without clear limits. It can expand to various levels of
aspirations in different societies and based on different potentials. On the other hand, all people
must enjoy a minimum level of security in order to protect their lives and livelihoods. Human
development and human security actually observe human condition from different ends of a
continuum, summarized by Amartya Sen as “expansion with equity” (human development) and
“downturn with security” (human security) (UNDP, 2009: 20). The two concepts are therefore
complementary, meeting and overlapping along a line running from human desperation to
human aspirations, as illustrated in the following graph. Vital core is placed at the intersection
of human security and human development. It is crucial for securing people’s lives, but also
represents the foundation on which people develop up their capabilities and aspirations.

3.2. Theoretical Framework to Human Security

Emma Rothschild

Emma Rothschild tries to explain the current content of human security by linking it to
European political thought. In doing so she notes that the new approach to security has extended
the national security concept to four directions:

64
 1. “From the security of nations to the security of groups and individuals: it is extended
downwards from nations to individuals

2. From the security of nations to the security of the international system, or of a

supranational physical environment: it is extended upwards, from the nation to the
biosphere. The extension, in both cases, is in the sorts of entities whose security is to be
ensured.

3. Extended horizontally, or to the sorts of security that are in question. Different entities
(such as individuals, nations, and ‘systems’) cannot be expected to be secure or insecure
in the same way; the concept of security is extended, therefore, from military to
political, economic, social, environmental, or ‘human’ security.

4. “Political responsibility for ensuring security (or for invigilating all these ‘concepts of
security’) is itself extended: it is diffused in all directions from national states, including
upwards to international institutions, downwards to regional or local government, and
sideways to nongovernmental organizations, to public opinion and the press, and to the
abstract forces of nature or of the market.”

Rothschild highlights the need for international measures to prevent civil conflicts and argues
for strengthening international instruments for better promotion of human security. In
developing these proposals, she raises salient issues of authority, coercion, resource generation,
consensus-building, and subsidiarity. The proposal as it stands is worthy of ongoing
consideration; one also hopes that similar historical analyses will be carried out in relation to
other national or regional concepts.

Gary King and Christopher

Murray King and Murray, unlike Rothschild did not link human security with historical contexts
and gives a more rigorous but measurable definition of human security. They criticized the
existing concept of human security defined by UN as too broad to be useful as a construct for
foreign policy. Their article published in Political Science Quarterly, states: ‘We define an
individual’s human security as his or her expectation of years of life without experiencing the
state of generalized poverty’. They proposed an index of human security that includes only
those domains of well-being that have been important enough for human beings to fight over or

65
to put their lives or property at great risk. These domains were identified as health, education,
income, political freedom, and democracy. Their index sets thresholds in each domain that are
in some sense absolute; the index would identify a person as insecure if he or she fell below a
threshold in any of the domains. Their approach does not include violence, but rather focuses on
issues associated with the “freedom from want.” In other words, we can say that King and
Murray linked human security with developmental dimensions rather than Conflict related
issues.

Caroline Thomas

Thomas gives new dimension of human security in the context of globalization and the
inequalities associated with its dynamics. Like King and Murray, he also equates human
security with basic material needs human dignity and democracy. According to him, ‘Human
security describes a condition of existence in which basic material needs are met and in which
human dignity, including meaningful participation in the life of the community, can be met.
Thus, while material sufficiency lies at the core of human security, in addition the concept
encompasses non-material dimensions to form a qualitative whole. Human security is oriented
towards an active and substantive notion of democracy, and is directly engaged with discussions
of democracy at all levels, from the local to the global.’ Thus, Thomas also attached great
importance to eradication of poverty and providing material support as the key elements in
human security.

Hampson

Echoing the above views on human security Hampson also tried to identify human security with
economic needs and interests although he slightly elaborated the concept to incorporate physical
safety of individual and protection of basic freedoms. According to him, ‘The concept of
‘security’ can be defined as the absence of threat to core human values, including the most basic
human value, the physical safety of the individual.” They identify other core human values as
physical security, and the protection of basic liberties, economic needs and interests.

More over him extends the roots of human security to sustainable development and human
rights. Human security was always an underprovided public good and proper approach to

66
human security need’s active role of various actors including state, civil society and
international bodies.

Leaning and Are

Leaning and Are proposed a new dimension of security after studying the low level of human
security in Africa. Even though their definition and theory of human security focused on human
development and capability, unlike other scholars they did not ignore psychological and non-
material aspects of human security. Instead, they described human security as a pre-condition
for human development. According to them, human security is ‘An underlying condition for
sustainable human development. It results from the social, psychological, economic, and
political aspects of human life that in times of acute crisis or chronic deprivation protect the
survival of individuals, support individual and group capacities to attain minimally adequate
standards of living, and promote constructive group attachment and continuity through time’
Further they propose three key measurable components of human security:

1. A Sustainable sense of home;

2. A constructive social and family networks; and

3. An acceptance of the past and a positive grasp of the future.

It is suggested that these components can be best measured by trends in their inverse indicators
(proposed measures are: social dislocation, shifts in horizontal inequality, and discount rate).
Their work raises in particular the need to address cultural and psychological dimensions
(which are not easy to measure), without diluting or derailing the focus and compactness of
human security as a “minimal set.”

Amartya Sen

Amartya Sen presents a broad concept of human security by linking economic, developmental
aspects to political and social aspects. His analysis of human security gives high social of cost
of unequal income distribution and highlights the need for down turn with security along with
the old slogan of growth with equity, given the fact that occasional downturns are common in
market economies .Thus in achieving security under these circumstances, and in trying to
guarantee secure daily living in general, we need social and economic provisions (for example,

67
for so-called "economic safety nets" and the guaranteeing of basic education and health care),
but also political participation, especially by the weak and the vulnerable, since their voice is
vitally important. This requires the establishment and efficient working of democracies with
regular elections and the tolerance of opposition, but also the cultivation of a culture of open
public discussion. Democratic participation can directly enhance security through supporting
human dignity (more on this presently), but they also help in securing the continuation of daily
lives (despite downturns) and even the security of survival (through the prevention of famines).

Kante Bajpai

Another notable contribution to the theory of human security is given by Kante Bajpai who
attempted to provide Human Security Audit. He argues that there are two components at the
core of human security Direct and indirect threats to individual bodily safety and freedom The
capacity to deal with threats namely the fostering of norms institutions and democratization in
decision making process. An audit of human security would consist of

I. An accounting of the growth or decline in threats and

II. An estimate of the capabilities to meet those threats he further says that
human security audit is possible both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Like HDI we may prepare Human Security Index and audit each countries success in this
aspect. Second, those factors that are not susceptible to measurement can be assessed
qualitatively. These factors are generally at the international/global level and usually more on
the capabilities” rather than “threats” side of the security audit. Thus, a qualitative estimate, on
an annual basis, of global disarmament efforts would be far more useful than a listing of the
numbers of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in existence.

He further says that HS Index have at least five uses

1. Developing a social early warning system

2. Focusing attention on problem areas

3. Redefining national and international policy priorities

4. Setting national and international standards

68
 5. Generating new social scientific knowledge

3.3. Approaches to Human Security:

The popularization of the human security model in the 1990s marked a signal triumph for
proponents of a broad understanding of security. The debate has tended to center around four
key questions:
⸙ Who or what should be the focus the referent object of security?
⸙ Who or what threatens security?
⸙ Who has the prerogative to provide security?
⸙ What methods are appropriate, or inappropriate, in providing security

3.3.1 “East – West” Approaches to Human Security

For the advocates of human security in the West, a powerful challenge to the idea comes from
the “East” (Asia), a challenge that draws upon the East’s traditional understandings of security,
claims of cultural specificity, and relative abundance of illiberal polities. To be sure, Asia hosts
some of the strongest advocates of the human security idea. But the understanding of human
security now prevalent in much of Asia differs in important respects from its meaning in the
Western countries. Some Asian governments and analysts see human security as yet another
attempt by the West to impose its liberal values and political institutions on non-Western
societies. Others question the alleged newness of the concept, claiming that the emphasis of the
human security idea on a broad range of non-military threats mirrors many regional
governments’ earlier, home-grown notion of “comprehensive security”.
Western Human security
A good deal of the controversy about human security today arises from a perception that the
notion, at least in its Western usage, reflects the individualistic ethos of liberal democracy. Thus
some understandings of human security see it as integral to the West’s campaign for human
rights and liberal democracy. This, at least to a certain Asian mindset, conflicts with the old
“Asian approach to human rights” developed in the heydays of the “universalism versus cultural
relativism” debates about human rights in Asia.
In the early 1990s, Western onslaught on human rights and Democratization was started
growing. Neither is human security “Western” in the sense that it ignores the issue of economic
rights, or the “right to development” that was once put forward as a counter to the Western

69
emphasis on political rights during the heydays of the “Asian view on human rights.” The
“development as freedom” perspective of Amartya Sen (1999), a Nobel Laureate in economics
and a member of the International Commission on Human Security, further underscores the
crucial link between freedom from fear and freedom from want.
There are four major developments which have converged behind the emergence of the human
security idea. These are:
1. the growing incidence of civil wars and intra-state conflicts which now far outnumber
conventional inter-state conflicts;
2. the spread of democratization;
3. the advent of humanitarian intervention, or the principle that the international
community is justified in intervening in the internal affairs of states accused of gross
violation of human rights; and
4. the widespread poverty, unemployment and social dislocation caused by the economic
crises of the 1990s which have been blamed on the dynamics of globalization.
The Asian Roots of Human Security
Many countries in Asia have embraced a broader conception of human security, rather than the
Canadian/Norwegian formulation. This accords with existing conceptions of comprehensive
security in Asia, although there are, as will be seen later, some important differences between
the two. The Japanese formulation also renders the concept of human security less controversial
for Asia Pacific governments suspicious of, and uncomfortable with, the close association
between human security and human rights promotion and humanitarian intervention.
Indeed, the “human need” aspect of human security has been especially salient in the Asia
Pacific context in the aftermath of the regional economic crisis. The crisis dramatically
increased the incidence of poverty, undermined the fruits of decades of development, caused
widespread political instability (the most dramatic case being Indonesia), and aggravated
economic competition and inter-state tensions over refugees and illegal migration. It also
underscored the need for good governance (to the extent that corruption, nepotism and cronyism
were blamed for the crisis) and environmentally sustainable development (especially in the
wake of the forest fires in the region attributed to reckless development and corruption).
Moreover, the crisis underscored the crucial need for social safety nets for the poor, something
ignored in the heady days of growth. In fact, a major advocate of human security in Asia,

70
former Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuan of Thailand, has explicitly linked the concept to the need
for social safety nets in the wake of the regional economic downturn.
While Asian governments generally prefer a need-oriented human security approach differences
remain over the extent to which human security should be defined primarily as such, without
incorporating those rights-protective elements that speak to freedom from fear. Countries such
as Japan and Thailand do not see the two as being mutually exclusive; in fact, Thailand in its
domestic arena has made a clear attempt to reconcile freedom from want (in the sense of its
stress on social safety nets) with freedom from fear (in the sense of developing a more rights-
protective political system). While human security must be geared first and foremost to human
need, the Thai approach under the Chuan Leekpai government at least did not see a
contradiction between this and the safety and dignity of the individual protected through a
political system geared to human rights and democracy.
Human security in the Asia Pacific must examine its relationship with two prior ideas which
have had a considerable impact on security beliefs and practices in the region: the ideas of
Comprehensive Security and Cooperative Security. For comparison, economic and food
security are the first two elements of the UNDP’s seven elements of human security. Ironically,
few doctrines of comprehensive security in Asia have been more comprehensive than the
UNDP’s seven elements. Asian formulations of the concept during the Cold War period
accorded little space to personal, community, and political security, the latter in the sense of
protection of basic human rights and freedom. This underscores a key variation between
comprehensive security and human security.
Asian formulations of the concept during the Cold War period accorded little space to personal,
community, and political security, the latter in the sense of protection of basic human rights and
freedom. Comprehensive security in Asia Pacific was a fundamentally statist notion despite
claiming to proffer an alternative to conventional national security. Moreover, while it went
beyond military threats, military defense remained a core component of comprehensive security.
Unlike comprehensive security, the idea of cooperative security emerged from the ashes of the
Cold War. It represented an adaptation from the notion of common security developed in
Europe through the institutional mechanism of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (CSCE). Cooperative security also envisages a broad agenda of cooperation,

71
encompassing military confidence-building, political dialogue and other forms of functional
cooperation.

3.3.2. The UN Approach to Human Security

The UNDP Human Development Report of 1994 introduces the concept of human security,
which focuses on the people (UNDP 1994: 22). The same document points out that the term
‘security’ has long been interpreted too narrowly-used in the context of “security of territory
from external aggression” and thus suggests that human security involves much more than just
the absence of conflict. This formally shifts the emphasis from state security to human security.
The report further qualifies human security as “safety from chronic threats such as hunger,
disease, and repression as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the
patterns of daily life – whether in homes, jobs or communities” (UNDP, 1994: 23).

In addition to the basic features of the concept of HS (Lesson 00 01) the basic threats can also
be seen through the seven dimensions of HS:
 Economic Security: unemployment, job insecurity, income inequality, inflation,
underdeveloped social security and homelessness;
 Food Security: the problems of physical and economic access to food;
 Health Security: threats to life and health and inadequate access to health services
(Lesson 04 05);
 Environmental Security: the degradation of ecosystems, pollution of water, air and
soil;
 Personal Security: physical violence, war, discrimination, domestic violence, child
abuse;
 Community Security: ethnic tensions and violent conflicts;
 Political Security: state repression and violation of human rights (UNDP, 1994: 24-33).
The Commission on Human Security (CHS) was established in January 2001. The first report of
this commission, Human Security Now, was published in 2003. According to this report, the
concept of HS seeks to “protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human
freedoms and human fulfillment “(CHS, 2003). This report adds the Freedom to Live in
Dignity to the vital objectives of human security which thus means respecting the basic
principles of democracy, rule of law and human rights and freedoms.

72
The efforts and initiatives of the UN, in the development of the concept of human security, were
presented in the report A More Secure World (2004) at the UN Secretary General’s High-level
Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. It has been acknowledged that a wide range of threats
exist, that threats endangering national security and the security of individuals are connected-
and therefore there is a greater need for better cooperation in order to eliminate the
aforementioned threats, and a greater necessity for approaches that will cover both human and
national security issues (United Nations, 2004).
In the report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All
(2005), Freedom from Fear, Freedom from Deprivation and Freedom to Live in Dignity are
given as the basic elements of human security. It emphasizes that security cannot be achieved
without development and that conversely, development cannot be attained without security and
neither of these can be achieved without respect of human rights. That same year, the UN
General Assembly adopted The Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit, which
confirms in paragraph 143 (Outcome Document A / RES / 60/1) that: “all individuals, in
particular vulnerable people, are entitled to Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want, with
an equal opportunity to enjoy their rights and fully develop their human potential” (General
Assembly, 2005).
In 2012, The General Assembly adopted UN resolution 66/290 entitled “Follow-up to paragraph
143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.” With this resolution, human
security has been defined as “an approach to assist Member States in identifying and addressing
widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their people.”
In accordance with this resolution the concept of human security, among other things, means:
“The right of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair. All
individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to Freedom from Fear and Freedom
from Want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human
potential” (General Assembly, 2012).

General Assembly resolution 66/290 was an important milestone in the 20-year evolution of the
implementation of human security within the UN system.

73
3.3.3. AU Approach to Human Security
AU is making in the promotion of human security doctrines in Africa. It contends that the
African ruling elite and policymakers have become aware of human security doctrines through
the AU. Human security ideas have been integrated into AU documents and work. They inform
many AU binding agreements, key policy documents, treaties, memoranda of understanding,
plans of action, mission and vision statements, communiqués, conventions, declarations and
decisions. Almost all decisions, declarations and protocols that African leaders have adopted
since the formation of the AU have had strong human security undertones.

The AU Commission and the Peace and Security Council have taken centre stage in shaping the
AU human security agenda. These human security objectives entail creating conditions for
individuals to satisfy their basic needs. These include working to provide the social, economic,
political, environmental and cultural conditions necessary for the survival and dignity of the
individual; striving to create conditions for the protection of and respect for human rights and
good governance; and trying to guarantee for each individual the opportunity to fulfil his/her
full development. This understanding of human security informs the AU’s work in the areas of
peace, security, political governance and economic development.

AU human security agenda

The AU human security agenda in the areas of peace and security is clearly expressed in article
4(h) of the Constitutive Act (CA) of the African Union. Article 4(h), which empowers the
Union to intervene in the affairs of a member state in order to ‘prevent war crimes, genocide
and crimes against humanity’, was inserted into the CA, as a number of informed writers on the
CA have eloquently argued, with a view to protecting ordinary people in Africa from abusive
governments).
To provide an operational arm to this specific human security element, the AU made room for
the creation of an African Standby Force (ASF) charged with the task of intervening militarily
in states for humanitarian purposes (African Union 2001). The condition laid down for human
security intervention under the AU ‘goes “beyond” the provision made for intervention in the
internal affairs of a country in the UN Charter’.
The CA has actually set lower thresholds for intervention than those outlined in any
international legal code (Weiss 2004). The specification of war crimes, genocide, and crimes

74
against humanity by the drafters of the CA as grounds for intervention has provided a clearer set
of criteria for the Union to intercede in a state to protect human security. The AU, unlike other
international organizations, does not necessarily require the consent of a state to intervene in its
internal affairs when populations are at risk. That is, the OAU’s system of complete consensus
has been abandoned.
Under the AU, a decision on the part of a two-thirds majority of the Assembly is required for
intervention. The AU used this principle to arrive at the decision to deploy a peacekeeping force
to monitor a ceasefire in Burundi in April 2003.
The Assembly also used this principle to decide on the mission to the Darfur region of Sudan in
the summer of 2004.
The AU also approaches economic development from a human security perspective. The
development agenda in articles 3 and 4 of the CA is intended to create conditions necessary for
sustainable development. As part of this agenda, the AU commits its member states to ensuring
balanced economic development, to promoting gender equality and good health, and to working
towards eradicating preventable diseases (articles 3(j) and (n); 4(l) and (n)).
The AU has adopted an approach to political governance in Africa that is human security-
centered in as much as the CA commits member states to promoting ‘respect for the sanctity of
human life’ (article 4(o)). Article 4(i), moreover, makes it clear that African people have a ‘right
to live in peace’. Article 3(h) therefore commits member states to a path where they will
‘promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights and other relevant human rights instruments. It is significant that
3(g) enjoins member governments to promote democratic principles and institutions, popular
participation and good governance. This provision is important, because it is generally
understood in the human security research community that democratic development is a critical
aspect of human security.
The decision to exclude from the AU states whose governments came to power through
unconstitutional means therefore advances the human security agenda. The strength of the
human security ideas embedded in the CA provokes questions on how and why these human
security doctrines entered the discourse, agenda, documents and programs of the AU.
Pan-Africanization of human security

75
Human security entered the discourse of Pan-Africanism in the early 1990s. It was initiated by
the Kampala Movement and Salim Ahmed Salim.
The Kampala Movement was an initiative of civil society groups that met in Kampala in
Uganda in the early 1990s to develop a regime of principles regarding security, stability,
development and cooperation for Africa. At the heart of the principles, widely known as the
CSSDCA, was a conscious effort to redefine ne security and sovereignty, and to demand certain
‘standards of behaviors from every government [in Africa] in the interest of common
humanity’.
The movement demanded that African leaders redefine their states’ security as a
multidimensional phenomenon going beyond military considerations to include economic,
political and social aspects of the individual, the family and the society. In the view of the
movement, ‘the concept of security must embrace all aspects of society and the security of a
nation must be based on the security of the life of the individual citizens to live in peace and to
satisfy basic needs’.
The document was submitted to African leaders for integration into the OAU framework in
early 1991. The OAU convened a meeting of African governments to discuss it in May 1991 in
Kampala. The leaders who attended agreed in principle in the Kampala Declaration to explore
the possibility of integrating the ideas into the OAU in another meeting in June 1991 in Abuja
in Nigeria. The CSSDCA was not adopted at the Abuja summit because of opposition by
Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi, Sudan’s Omar Hassan Ahmed El-Bashir and Kenya’s Daniel Arap
Moi. The leaders suspended discussions on the document and, indeed, on human security
indefinitely.
Although the OAU leadership rejected the CSSDCA, the Kampala initiative provided the
platform for Salim Ahmed Salim to place human protection on the OAU’s agenda. The specific
elements of the human protection agenda formed part of a broader policy initiative articulated in
a document called The political and socio-economic situation in Africa and the fundamental
changes taking place in the world, which the Assembly of the OAU adopted as a Declaration on
11 July 1990. This declaration recognized that the end of the Cold War had fundamentally
changed the geopolitics of the world and that African governments needed to adopt specifi c
measures to adapt to the new world order. It further argued that African states would henceforth
have to do things on their own; there would be no geo-strategic basis for outside powers to

76
protect Africans. It therefore called on the leaders to revive indigenous continental protection
initiatives.
More specifically, the declaration urged the OAU leadership to develop a framework for
preventing, managing and resolving confl icts, since there would be no rationale for the
international community to keep peace and promote human rights in Africa in the post- Cold
War era.
The declaration opened the space for Salim, at the OAU summit in July 1991 in Abuja, to
propose to the assembly a framework to create a mechanism for the OAU to prevent, manage
and resolve conflicts in Africa. This mechanism was not just for maintaining order as many
writers emphasize; it had the broader goal of protecting ordinary Africans from imminent
danger. The assembly adopted the mechanism in principle and instructed the OAU secretariat to
hold consultations with member states and to revise the proposal to reflect ‘the views,
comments and proposals of Member States’ (AHG/Decl 1 XXVIII).
A watered-down version of the mechanism was adopted by the assembly in Cairo, Egypt, in
June 1993. Certain governments in Africa in particular those of Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya and
Lansana Conte of Guinea ensured that certain provisions in the draft framework were removed.
These emphasized human protection and proposed the delegation of powers to the OAU
secretariat to protect ordinary Africans from state abuse. The extensive revisions of the draft
framework by African governments largely explain why the mechanism that was approved at
the OAU summit in Cairo in June 1993 adopted a traditional security approach. Nevertheless,
Salim’s initiative set in motion serious discussions within the OAU leadership on the need for it
to play a central role in protecting ordinary Africans from imminent threats.
Former South African president Nelson Mandela pushed the human security discussions further
on 13 June 1994 when he asked African leaders to empower the OAU to protect African people
and to prevent African governments from abusing the sovereignty of states (Mandela 1994).
The call emboldened the OAU secretariat to initiate a series of reform processes between 1995
and 1998 that were aimed at structuring the OAU in order to make it focus on human security
concerns. It also, in 1998, encouraged the secretariat to submit, and the assembly to adopt, two
key human security issues.
The first sought to make the promotion of ‘strong and democratic institutions’ a key objective
of the OAU (AHG/Decl XXXV). The second excluded from the OAU states ‘whose

77
governments came to power through unconstitutional means,’ and the third gave the OAU the
mandate to assist military regimes that may exist on the African continent in moving towards a
democratic system of government.
The election of Olusegun Obasanjo, who was a key figure in the Kampala Movement, as
president of Nigeria encouraged the OAU secretariat to embellish OAU documents and policies
with human security doctrines. Obasanjo himself made it a top priority to set in motion the
process of integrating the CSSDCA into the OAU (Deng & Zartman 2002: xv).
The decision to create the AU in September 1999 provided a good opportunity for the Nigerian
and the South African governments to support the OAU secretariat in merging human security
doctrines with Pan-African ideas. The strategy adopted by the secretariat aimed at encouraging
the delegations that negotiated the legal treaty of the AU to codify as principles some of the
ideas in the CSSDCA, while simultaneously working with African leaders to ensure the
adoption of the CSSDCA as a working document of the AU. The then assistant secretary-
general in charge of political affairs, Said Djinnit, and the acting legal counsellor of the OAU,
Ben Kioko, were instrumental in making the delegations adopt the concepts in articles 3 and 4
of the CA (discussed above). As a step towards making African leaders adopt the CSSDCA, the
secretariat, with the strong backing of the Nigerian government, convened a ministerial meeting
in May 2000 to discuss ways of integrating the CSSDCA into the AU/OAU. The report of the
ministerial meeting was approved by the OAU summit in Lomé in July 2000.
African leaders agreed to use the CSSDCA as norms and guiding principles of security,
stability, development and cooperation in a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in July 2002
in Pretoria, South Africa. Though MoU added many traditional security concerns to the
CSSDCA, it retained most of the human security principles.
Institutional mechanisms for promoting human security
The MoU paved the way for the secretariat to create a unit within the OAU to coordinate
CSSDCA activities. The CSSDCA unit is now called the African Citizens’ Directorate (CIDO).
More crucially, it opened the space for the AU Commission to try to institutionalize human
security ideas in Africa, which it does through civil society channels. The CIDO is building
coalitions around, and engineering consensus on, human security within civil society groups.
The office of the Chairperson of the AU Commission, the Political Department, the Peace and
Security Department and the Legal Affairs Department also use state channels, such as the

78
Assembly of Heads of State and Government, the Council of Ministers and the Permanent
Representative Committee, to convince the African ruling elite to accept human security
doctrines.
The African Citizens’ Directorate (CIDO)
The CIDO was originally established in 2001 as the implementation directorate of the
CSSDCA. The Nigerian government, which provided the resources for the creation of the
directorate, wanted the unit to focus on integrating CSSDCA ideas into all documents of the
AU. The AU Commission gave the CIDO the additional responsibility of facilitating civil
society engagement with the AU.
As part of its efforts to engage civil society with the AU organs and process, in 2001 the CIDO
developed an annual conference of indigenous African civil society and the AU. The CIDO
usually invites over 50 civil society groups in Africa to attend these conferences, which are
normally held before AU summits. About five conferences have been held since the first AU
civil society meeting in June 2001. The conferences have turned out to be a good place for the
AU Commission to sell AU programs, projects and agendas to civil society groups.
The CIDO is using the conferences to create awareness about the AU’s work and persuade the
civil society groups to integrate the AU’s policies, including the human security agenda, into
their advocacy activities and promote them in their states. Because the CIDO was established to
promote CSSDCA and the AU human security agenda, the discussions of all past AU-civil
society conferences have been dominated by human security issues. The head of the CIDO,
Jimmi Adisa, has taken full advantage of these conferences to create awareness and update civil
society groups about the CSSDCA and AU human security activities.
The CIDO also promotes the human security agenda in the intellectual and diaspora
communities and its head therefore took advantage of the CIDO civil society mandate to sell the
human security agenda at two major conferences the first in October 2004 in Senegal and the
second in July 2006 in Brazil.

3.3.4. Other Approaches

Canada has taken human security as the paradigm for its foreign policy and has taken a
leadership role in operationalizing it. Canada’s foreign policy framework has maintained a
distinctive focus on peace, security, development, and international cooperation throughout the
Cold War. The human security agenda has offered a way for Canada to contribute “a leading

79
voice on the world stage.” It was in the Ottawa Convention that the landmines treaty was signed
– something that Lloyd Axworthy, one of the energies behind Canada’s human security focus,
described as the “first major accomplishment” of the human security agenda. By 2000, when
human security appeared on Canada’s budget with dedicated funding, Axworthy (who holds a
wider definition of human security) reports that Canada’s security council used the language
and concept of human security regularly: “On the agenda were issues like protecting civilians in
armed conflict, reforming sanctions regimes to mitigate negative humanitarian outcomes,
bolstering the rights of women in places like Afghanistan, and the necessity of humanitarian
intervention to protect against a future Rwanda or Srebrenica.”
Conceptually, Canada’s interpretation of human security focuses on “freedom from pervasive
threats to people’s rights, safety or lives” - the protection of civilians, conflict prevention, public
safety, governance and accountability, and peace support operations. As Rob McRae
summarized this interpretation, “At its most basic level, human security means freedom from
fear.”
Canada’s conflict-focused reformulation of the human security term sets aside poverty reduction
goals, but this narrow interpretation is defended, “because we believe this is where the concept
of human security has the greatest value added – where it complements existing international
agendas already focused on promoting national security, human rights and human
development.”
Norway likewise focuses on the freedom from fear aspects of human security, and identifies a
core agenda of preventive action, small arms and light weapons control, and peace operations.
Both nations found human security, with its emphasis on protecting individuals, to be useful in
highlighting new and necessary aspects of security from violent opposition. They thus founded
the Human Security Network (otherwise known as the Lysøen Group), whose annual meetings
attract NGOs and governmental actors from about 13 countries, including Austria, Canada,
Chile, Greece, Ireland, Jordan, Mali, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, Thailand. They
have mobilized around practical responses to human security threats.
The topics of their actions include “protection for civilians,” “landmines treaty,” a “permanent
international criminal court,” children’s issues (the optional protocol to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child on minimum age for recruitment and deployment of soldiers), “small arms
and light weapons,” and “drug trafficking and organized crime networks.”

80
Japan maintains the broadest definition of human security, which “comprehensively covers all
the menaces that threaten human survival, daily life and dignity and strengthens efforts to
confront these threats.” Particularly, Japan does not prioritize “freedom from fear” over the
“freedom from want”, but holds them as dual objectives of human security. According to
Japan’s “blue book,” Japan emphasizes “‘Human Security’ from the perspective of
strengthening efforts to cope with threats to human lives, livelihoods and dignity such as
poverty, environmental degradation, illicit drugs, transnational organized crime, infectious
diseases such as HIV/AIDS, the outflow of refugees and anti-personnel landmines, and has
taken various initiatives in this context. To ensure ‘Human freedom and potential,’ a range of
issues needs to be addressed from the perspective of ‘Human Security,’ focused on the
individual, and requiring cooperation among the various actors in the international community,
including governments, international organizations and civil society.” Japan’s Human Security
emphasis has found leadership in the highest levels of government, and supports both
development-related activities and peace-related activities.
Generally, the approaches to human security can be summarized as follows.

Thinker Refe. object Key values Nature of the threats Agents

Kofi individuals Economic development,
Annan social justice,
environmental protection,
democratization,
disarmament, and respect
for human rights and the
rule of law”
Sadako Individuals 1.“Capacity of states and
Ogata citizens to prevent and
resolve conflicts.”
2. “People should enjoy all
rights and obligations
Internal violence, nuclear States,
weapons, mass destruction, individual,
repression, “gross abuses of nature,
human rights, the large-scale environment
displacement of civilian
populations, international
terrorism, the AIDS
pandemic, drug and
arms trafficking and
environmental disasters”
Military, Social, Economic Nature,
Environmental, Landmines environment,
Proliferation of Small, Arms states,
Drug Trafficking, Spread of individuals,
HIV rebels,

81
 without discrimination” international
3. “Social inclusion” criminals
4. “Establishment of rule of
law and the independence
of the justice system.
Rames Communiti Human security refers to Anything that degrades State,
h es the quality of life of the one’s “quality of life”. individuals,
Thakur people of a society or Examples: demographic societal
, polity” pressures, diminished groups,
“The core element of access to or stock of administrative
human security is human resources…” judicial,
rights.” police,
paramilitary
and military
structures,
“nature”, etc
UNDP Individual Freedom from fear, Economic, Food, Health, State,
Freedom from want and Environment, Personal, individuals,
indignities Community, and Political nature,
insecurity societal
groups
Human individuals Freedom from pervasive addresses nontraditional States and
Securit threats to safety and human threats to people's security rebels
y rights. related to economic, food,
Networ health, and environmental
ks issues such as drugs,
terrorism, organized crime,
Kante Individual Individual safety and Direct violence: violent States, non-
Bajpai Freedom death dehumanization, drugs, state actors
discrimination and Structural
domination, international sources from

82
 disputes, destructive r/ns of power
weapons. at various
Indirect violence: levels
deprivation, disease, economy.
natural and man-made
disasters,

3.4. Human Security Policies

Numerous initiatives launched by international, governmental and non-governmental

organizations are making the concept of human security recognizable and are entrenching it
firmly into public policies. These policies shape society and lives in order to achieve the highest
possible level of safety, security and personal dignity. Human security is increasingly being
adopted as a doctrine to guide foreign policies and international development assistance, as well
as a policy tool for planning in the fields of security, development and humanitarian work.

To define human security policies, we could use two terms policy and politics. The
term policy would refer to decision making activities in the public sphere which are important to
the community. Using the term politics, would limit the interpretation to advocating the
interests of a community. It is important to note the key differences between traditional security
policy and human security policy.
Human security approaches and policies focus on the physical and material safety and dignity of
people globally, and not on the military and strategic interests of individual states, which is
the case with traditional security policies. Defending human life is more important than
defending states and personal integrity is just as important as territorial integrity.

Wars between states are still a major global problem, and together with civil wars (intra-state
conflicts), pose major threats to human security around the globe. Use of threat and force has
not been reduced in international policies as the war in Syria shows. Additionally, human
security is also increasingly threatened by disasters, state collapse and widespread human right
abuses.

83
As human life and its protection is always the highest priority for people, human security
policies place an emphasis on addressing a wide range of threats, on prevention, and lived
experiences and a bottom-up approach rather than a focus on territory and elite agendas as in
classic security. From the perspective of human security peace always comes before war,
incentive for cooperation before armed conflict, and transparency and factual reporting on
military operations should replace secrecy and propaganda when providing information.
Human security policies involve a much wider spectrum of actors who need to contribute to
security. While military and police forces are the principal guarantee of security in the
traditional approach, for human security policies, civil society is an important actor as well.
Civil society, among other things, plays a part in arms control and may help bring about
disarmament, as seen in disarmament programs “goods for weapons” in Central America,
Eastern Europe and Africa, under the auspices of local non-governmental groups. Civil society
plays a key role in promoting compliance with national laws, and in verification of international
treaties (this is the case, for example, with conventions on the prohibition of the use of
landmines), in generating information and a bottom-up perspective and in improving the
legitimacy and sustainability of policy responses.
The importance of human security policies is also reflected in seeking to bring together
security and development. The development of a community plays an important role in
supporting disarmament, removing incentives for violence and criminalized economy, and when
striving for security of a community, development is considered at the same time, as a way of
ensuring peace. Conflict can be seen as ‘development in reverse’.
Threats to human security are interconnected and often produce a domino effect. For example,
violent conflicts often arise out of marginalization, deprivation and poverty and in turn can lead
to resource depletion, infectious diseases, education deficits, etc. Also, threats cannot be
contained within a given country or area but can spread into a wider region and have negative
impacts on regional and international security. Therefore, human security involves
a comprehensive approach, emphasizing both multiple sources of insecurity faced by
individuals and groups, and the need for cooperative and multi-sectoral responses, and which
brings together various actors involved in development, security and human rights.
Human security has a double focus, concentrating on protection and
empowerment. Protection implies a “top-down” approach. It is recognized that people face

84
threats that are beyond their control (e.g., natural disasters, financial crises and conflicts), and
human security therefore requires protecting people in a systematic, comprehensive and
preventative way. States have the primary responsibility to implement such protective policies.
However, international and regional organizations, the civil society and non-governmental
actors as well as the private sector also play a role in protecting people from various sources of
insecurity they are exposed to.
Empowerment implies a “bottom up” approach and aims to develop capabilities of individuals
and communities to develop their full potential, to make appropriate decisions and find ways to
participate in maintaining human security for themselves and others.

A good example of cooperation and joint multi-sectoral approaching solving the disarmament
problem is the RECSA – an inter-governmental organization that coordinates the efforts of its
Member States to combat the proliferation of small arms in the region. It was established in
2005 to oversee the implementation of the Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control and
Reduction of Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa
and Bordering States in its Member States. From the original 11 countries that signed the
Nairobi Protocol, member countries to RECSA have increased to 15, namely: Burundi, Central
African Republic, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda.

As a key activity preceding disarmament, RECSA worked on raising awareness and educating
the population and youth aiming to change their views on illegal possession of firearms,
disarmament and to promote a culture of peace. Activities included organization of street
marches, theatre plays, writing essays, youth competitions, broadcasting RECSA documentaries
on national television, etc. Disarmament and voluntary surrender of illegal arms happened in
Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania. In Congo, the civil disarmament campaign ran
in cooperation with the UNDP and other partners (MONUSCO, community leaders, the police
and the military, civil society and the provincial parliamentary caucus), resulting in 70% of the
population voluntarily surrendering arms. The campaign managed to collect21,099 pieces of
small arms and light weapons. In return, those who voluntarily surrendered their weapons were
given various goods, such as motorcycles, grinders, bicycles, bedding, mobile phones, hoes,

85
soap, etc. (Information Brief on The Regional Centre on Small Arms and Light Weapons in the
Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa and Bordering States (RECSA),2014)

From the perspective of the protection and empowerment framework, human security policies
aim to identify problems in the existing security infrastructure and to find ways to relieve
them. At the same time, a key feature of human security policies is that they are contextualized.
They should recognize the specific nature of threats and possibilities for action. By encouraging
participatory processes, the human security approach supports the development of a network of
diverse actors and establishing formal mechanisms for their cooperation. This can enhance the
dialogue between government institutions and citizens and lead to an increase in trust and
greater civic engagement, as well as improve social cohesion.

3.5. Human Security Paradigm

3.5.1. The Traditional State- Security Model versus the Human Security
Model
The relation between traditional state centered security and human security is coined in the early
1990s, the term human security has been used by thinkers who have sought to shift the
discourse on security away from its traditional state-centered orientation to the protection and
advancement of individuals within societies. Human security emerged as a challenge to ideas of
traditional security, but human and traditional or national security are not mutually
exclusive concepts. It has been argued that, without human security, traditional state security
cannot be attained and vice versa.

Traditional security is about a state's ability to defend itself against external threats.
Traditional security (often referred to as national security or state security) describes the
philosophy of international security predominance since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and
the rise of the nation-states. While international relations theory includes many variants of
traditional security, from realism to liberalism, the fundamental trait that these schools share is
their focus on the primacy of the nation state.

“Human Security complements state security, strengthens human development and enhances
human rights” (CHS: 2003: 2). Yet the question often arises as to what are the substantive
differences between these concepts. Significant among these are the following:

86
 Whereas state security concentrates on threats directed against the state, mainly in the form of

military attacks, human security draws attention to a wide scope of threats faced by individuals

and communities. It focuses on root causes of insecurities and advances people-centered

solutions that are locally driven, comprehensive and sustainable. As such, it involves a broader
range of actors: e.g., local communities, international organizations, civil society as well as the
state itself. Human security, however, is not intended to displace state security. Instead, their
relationship is complementary: “human security and state security are mutually reinforcing and
dependent on each other. Without human security, state security cannot be attained and vice
versa” (CHS: 2003: 6).

To human development’s objective of ‘growth with equity’, human security adds the important
dimension of ‘downturn with security’. Human security acknowledges that as a result of
downturns such as conflicts, economic and financial crises, ill health, and natural disasters,
people are faced with sudden insecurities and deprivations. These not only undo years of
development but also generate conditions within which grievances can lead to growing tensions.
Therefore, in addition to its emphasis on human well-being, human security is driven by values
relating to security, stability and sustainability of development gains.

Lastly, too often gross violations of human rights result in conflicts, displacement, and human
suffering on a massive scale. In this regard, human security underscores the universality and
primacy of a set of rights and freedoms that are fundamental for human life. Human security
makes no distinction between different kinds of human rights – civil, political, economic, social
and cultural rights thereby addressing violations and threats in a multidimensional and
comprehensive way. It introduces a practical framework for identifying the specific rights that
are at stake in a particular situation of insecurity and for considering the institutional and
governance arrangements that are needed to exercise and sustain them.

The following table contrasts four differences between the two perspectives:

Traditional Security Human Security

Refere  Policies are designed to promote  It is people-centered.

nt demands ascribed to the state.
 Its focus shifts to protecting individuals.
object  Other interests are subordinated to those

87
 of the state.  The important dimensions are to entail the

 It protects a state's boundaries, people, well-being of individuals and respond to

institutions and values. ordinary people's needs in dealing with

sources of threats.

Scope ⸙ Traditional security seeks to defend states  In addition to protecting the state from
from external aggression. external aggression, human security would
expand the scope of protection to include a
⸙ Walter Lippmann explained that state
broader range of threats, including
security is about a state's ability to deter
environmental pollution, infectious diseases,
or defeat an attack.
and economic deprivation.
⸙ It makes use of deterrence strategies to
maintain the integrity of the state and
protect the territory from external threats.

Actors  The state is the sole actor.  The realization of human security involves
not only governments, but a broader
 Decision making power is centralized in
participation of different actors, viz.
the government.
regional and international organizations,
 It assumes that a sovereign state is
non-governmental organizations and local
operating in an anarchical international
communities.
environment, in which there is no world
governing body to enforce international
rules of conduct.

Means  Traditional security relies upon building
up national power and military defense.
 The common forms it takes are
armament races, alliances, strategic
boundaries etc.
 Human security not only protects, but also
empowers people and societies as a means
of security.
 People contribute by identifying and
implementing solutions to insecurity.

88
3.6. Human Security as Political Discourse
Beyond the academic dialogue as to whether security should be broadened and deepened as an
analytical framework, human security introduces a number of new ideas for policy
interventions. As a policy tool it allows a re-examination of the changing norms of sovereignty,
collective security, and power politics. Ultimately, the question is posed as to who is in the best
position to “provide” human security as a public good. Who are the actors, what are their duties,
and what are the factors that impinge on their responsibility to protect?

The responsibility to provide human security falls first and foremost on the states. This
conclusion is based on a reexamination of the changing nature of sovereignty, broadening the
definition so as to go beyond the protection of borders and to include responsibility to provide
for the well-being of the population. If sovereignty is seen as simply negative sovereignty, that
is to say as freedom from outside intervention, we are reminded of the Hobbesian social
contract that was supposed to accompany the Westphalian bargain between states. A truly
effective state is one that plays a central role in economic and social development, if not as a
direct provider of growth at least as a partner, catalyst, facilitator and regulator – one that can
provide for human security and deal with social breakdowns.

The strength or weakness of a state is therefore to be judged not simply on the basis of its
capacity to handle problems that threaten its security (such as for example armed insurgency or
ethnic strife) but on the basis of its capacity to ward off threats to the health, welfare and level
of life of its citizens Hence, if a failed state is traditionally considered as one that threatens
regional security, from a human security point of view, a weak or failed state is primarily one
which cannot deliver on the state-society bargain inside its own borders. When states are not
willing or capable of bearing the ‘responsibility’ of their own sovereignty, other actors, such as
international organizations, have, if not an obligation, a moral responsibility to act.

The discussion of who should provide human security in the case of weak or collapsed states is
therefore closely linked to the debates on international intervention. It prompts a shift in both
the ends and means of intervention, and focuses the debate on new ways of engagement at the
international level. The new forms of engagement for collective human security involve not
only military intervention as a reaction to crisis, but a responsibility for the prevention of crises
and the rebuilding of society. Human security interventions and engagements should therefore

89
be long-term and focus on eradication of grievances, and not only come into play when a
breakdown has already occurred.

The concept of human security has been adopted by a number of states, as well as regional and
international organizations. Chronologically, we can establish three broad stages:

1) a world debut was the Global Human Development Report of the UNDP in 1994 that sought
to seize the opportunity provided by the end of the Cold War, but was met with scepticism from
the G77 for fear it would lead to violations of state sovereignty;

2) between 2001 and 2003, the concept was revived in the debate on the “responsibility to
protect”, spearheaded by the Canadian International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty (ICISS), and in the discussions on the “responsibility for development” initiated by
the Japanese Commission on Human Security (CHS), with the two governments – Canada and
Japan – providing the necessary leadership and funding for including human security on the
global agenda;

3) in the years 2004-2005, as the need to readjust to the new realities of the 21st century and in
particular to find means of mounting concerted, collective responses to new threats became
increasingly clear, human security, conceived of as the linking of security to development,
became a topic of reform agendas in the UN and in such regional organizations as the European
Union.

To traditional security concerns, human security added new issues and targeted new objectives
of “security”. It was thus a precondition for the process of human development and a necessity
for its sustainability. Human development was about expanding people’s freedom to live a life
of their choice by providing an equitable, participatory process of economic growth; human
security, on the other hand, focused on the “downside risks”, abrupt changes or disruptions that
threatened people’s livelihoods.
By the end of 2004, two documents had appeared in which attempts were made to clarify
human security threats and what the international community should do about them. One was
the report from the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change entitled A More
Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, and the other was the reform agenda proposed by
Kofi Annan in Towards All Freedom. The High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and

90
Change was established in late 2003 by the Secretary General to look beyond the traditional
security concerns of the era. In the post-Iraq world, it was first of all necessary to clearly define
the new issues: terrorism, the doctrine of preemptive intervention, and humanitarian
intervention in the name of human security. Second was the need to define the proper role for
the UN, whose responsibility was challenged by both globalization and the emergence of one
superpower prepared to use force unilaterally to serve its own national interests.
In several ways the report the panel released in December of 2004, A More Secure World: Our
Shared Responsibility advanced the cause of human security. It set a broad framework for
collective programs to address new and exacerbated security threats such as economic and
social threats, such as poverty and deadly infectious disease; inter-state conflict and rivalry;
internal violence including civil war, state collapse and genocide; nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons; terrorism; and transnational organized crime.
The High-Level Panel outlined a reform package which Kofi Annan proposed to the member
states in March of 2005 aimed at restoring UN credibility and relevance for this new era of
collective security. Although the report, entitled In Larger Freedoms, did not specifically
employ the term “human security” for fear of raising questions concerning a concept not yet
debated by the General Assembly, it clearly underscored the linkages between human rights,
development and security as three imperatives which reinforced each other.”
The report stressed the fact that poverty, deadly infectious disease and environmental
degradation could have “consequences as catastrophic” as civil violence, organized crime,
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) co-chaired by Gareth
Evans, ICG Director and Mohamed Sahnoun, the Algerian Special Advisor to the Secretary
General make a final report, entitled The Responsibility to Protect, by way of answer to critics
of military interventions in sovereign states for humanitarian purposes, made a number of
important points such as in foreign affairs respect for the sovereignty of other states and within
its borders respect for the dignity and basic rights of all its people. Second, it redefined
interventions as actions taken against a state or leader, with or without its or his consent, for
purposes defined as humanitarian or protective. These could mean both military interventions as
well as alternatives such as economic sanctions, criminal prosecution, etc., used as preventive
measures (to forestall the need for military action).

91
The atmosphere of the post-September 11th world also explains the lukewarm reception that
greeted the report of the Global Commission on Human Security in April of 2003, a report
which argued that human security was a public good that, in the aftermath of conflict situations,
should be provided by states and communities instead of through military interventions by the
international community. In its final report, Human Security Now, the Commission defined
human security as the necessity to protect vital freedoms by building on people’s strengths and
aspirations and by protecting them from hostile incursions and disruptions. The CHS Report
stressed twin strategies – empowerment and protection. Empowerment would enable people to
develop their full potential and become active participants in decision-making.

3.7. The Roles of States and International Organizations in Promoting

Human Security
Returning to the core of the conversation between sovereignty and human security, theory and
philosophy back up the urgent need to practically respond to the three main tenets of State and
human security:

⸙ Ensuring the territorial and physical security of citizens;

⸙ Protecting lives and livelihoods through basic economic stability, health, and welfare;
and

⸙ Bearing accountability internally and to the international community (hösle 2003;

risse 2007).

Assuming that States remain the final arbiter of such securities, articulating, delegating, and
assuming respective State and human rights and responsibilities are key to reimagining and
implementing human security beyond borders.

To ensure Human security the states have to use two strategies of action: protection and
empowerment.

• Protection is defined by the Commission on Human Security as “strategies set up by states,

international agencies, NGOs and the private sector, (to) shield people from menaces.” It
implies establishing “top-down” measures, recognizing that people face threats that are beyond
their control (natural disasters, financial crises, conflicts). Human security requires systematic,

92
comprehensive and preventive protection. States have primary responsibility to implement such
protection, while other actors such as international bodies, civil society and NGOs play a pivotal
role.

• Empowerment is the “strategies (that) enable people to develop their resilience to difficult
situations” and implies “bottom-up” measures that aim to develop the capacity of individuals
and communities to make informed choices and to act on their own behalf. Empowerment not
only enables people to develop their full potential but also permits them to participate in the
design and implementation of solutions to ensure human security for themselves and others.

With an expanded notion of security come new types of responsibilities. These includes:
First and foremost, that of the state: if sovereignty once meant monopoly over the use of
violence and the defense of territory from external threats, it now has to integrate the idea of
responsibility to protect and to empower. The responsibility of a viable state is then to provide
stability, fostering equitable economic growth, ensuring essential social services, regulating the
markets to prevent massive fluctuations, and allowing the people to take part in the decision-
making processes. Providing education and employment can break the vicious cycle which
threatens many countries, a cycle of poverty linked to malnutrition, compounded by lack of
family planning as well as by the risk of HIV infection. Adopting a human security framework
as a policy orientation allows states to address basic human needs, reduce inequalities and
provide social safety nets for people who are impoverished or whose lives are disrupted by
sudden and severe economic crises.
Second, an expanded notion of human security requires growing recognition of the role of
people of individuals and communities in ensuring their own security. Human security as public
good constitutes a responsibility for the state, but there is a complementary duty for the people
themselves to become engaged in the process. It is the response of the people that will allow the
state to assume its true role and achieve moral legitimacy. As the Human Security Now report
puts it, “achieving Human Security includes not just protecting people but also empowering
people to fend for themselves”. Human security is thus not simply the challenge of “protecting”
and “providing” but involves fostering the empowerment of the people and their participation.
Third, the adoption of a human security paradigm in no way bars a role for the international
community in cases where the state in question is unable or unwilling to fulfill its responsibility

93
to protect its citizens, providing them with the necessities of life and opportunities for
empowerment. For the international community, human development concerns are considered
as “domestic” matters; the individual states have a responsibility to provide for the welfare of
their citizens. However, as the menaces to the safety of people have become trans-national,
responses need to involve multilateral cooperation. Human security has the added advantage of
stipulating that if a state fails not only to protect its people from inter-state conflicts or civil
strife, but fails as well to take care of their basic needs and to furnish opportunities for
development, then the international community can act to limit the damage and circumscribe the
danger. As a preventive measure, human security calls for a new modality of global cooperation
that falls just short of intervention.

94
 CHAPTER FOUR

MIGRATION-HUMAN SECURITY NEXUS

4.1. Globalization, Migration, and Human Security

As the global population increased from 3.7 billion in 1970 to more than 7.5 billion today,
globalization, economic inequalities and demographic developments have contributed to
sizeable migratory flows, predominantly from the Global South to the Global North. Europe is
faced today with a conflict zone stretching across the Middle East and North Africa, and with
several fragile countries, rapidly growing populations, rising urbanization and huge economic
inequalities in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
The pace and direction of globalization is one of the several trends and drivers influencing
population movements and in addition causes changes in global and regional demographic
trends; the state of the global economy; the number and intensity of regional, interstate and
intrastate conflicts; and the impact of climate change. These all also have an impact on human
security.
Globalization has indeed dislocated millions of people and set in motion population movements
that are now hard for anyone to control. This represents a serious political challenge to nation-
states, which often can no longer effectively regulate who crosses their borders, either because
they are unable to enforce immigration laws or lack the resolve to do so, raising the critical
question of whether national boundaries are on the way to obsolescence.
Globalization is the increasing of complexity of global relations and the rapidity with which
information reflections around the world. But Globalization may also render the world to more
sensitive sudden financial or strategic shocks as well as, shifting the terrain of global relations
also ensures that security issues of any kind can appear unexpectedly and rapidly change in
shape and scope. It may also lead to Human security risks at any moment in time, people and
their communities can be subject to political violence or environmental scarcities, which
individually can generate a host of future dangers: food shortages, economic hardship, crime,
disease and human rights abuses.

95
4.2. Human Security in Diverse Contexts
4.2.1. Gender based violence as a Human Security Issue
Human security focuses on the serious neglect of gender concerns under the traditional security
model. Traditional security's focus on external military threats to the state has meant that the
majority of threats women face have been overlooked. It has recently been argued that these
forms of violence are often overlooked because expressions of masculinity in contexts of war
have become the norm. By focusing on the individual, the human security model aims to
address the security concerns of both women and men equally.

However, as of recent conflicts, it is believed that the majority of war casualties are civilians
and that "such a conclusion has sometimes led to the assumptions that women are victimized by
war to a greater extent than men, because the majority of adult civilians are women, and when
the populations of civilian women and children are added together, they outnumber male
combatants.

Furthermore, in the post-war context women survivors generally outnumber men and so it is
often said that women as a group bear a greater burden for post-war recovery". Women are
often victims of violence and conflict: they form the majority of civilian deaths; the majority of
refugees; and, are often the victims of cruel and degrading practices, such as rape. Women's
security is also threatened by unequal access to resources, services and opportunities.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, as of 1995, suggested that the
problem is not just a social one, but requires evaluation of the political institutions which uphold
unequal system of domination. Women's rights are neglected especially in the Middle East and
Southeast Asian regions where customary practices are still prevalent. Although there are
different opinions on the issue of customary practices, it infringes upon human security's notion
where women and men are innated with equal human rights. Attempts to eradicate such violent
customary practices requires political and legal approaches where human security in relation to
gender should be brought up as the main source of assertion.

Such cruel customary practices as honor killing, burning brides and widows, child marriage is
still in existence because of women's vulnerability in economic independence and security.
Human security in relationship to gender tries to overthrow such traditional practices that are
incompatible to the rights of women. Also, human security seeks to empower women, through
96
education, participation and access, as gender equality is seen as a necessary precondition for
peace, security and a prosperous society.

Feminist critiques of human security: Rape as a weapon of war theory

During times of conflict, certain varieties of masculinity come to be celebrated by the State, and
these varieties of behaviors can influence how a population's combatants come to behave, or are
expected to behave during crises. These behaviors range from acting aggressively and
exemplifying hyper-masculine behaviors, to playing upon the rise of "nationalist or ethnic
consciousness" to secure "political support for the cause and to undermine "the Other".

Overtly militaristic societies have utilized rape and other sexually violent acts to further their
gains within the context of war, but also by using such practices of violence as rewards to the
(often male) combatants. This tactic undermines the enemy's morale, as they are seen as "unable
to protect their women".

The category of human

Recent feminist critiques of Human Security often find difficulties with the concept and
categorization of "Human". This categorization is made under the influence of certain value
systems which are inherently exclusive by their nature. For instance, the liberal definition of
"human" is: someone that is independent and capable of making decisions for themselves.

This definition is problematic because it excludes persons who are not independent, such as
persons with disabilities, from human security rights. If Human Security was to be entirely
inclusive it would need to challenge the current definition of "human" on which it operates and
acknowledge that different abilities also require rights.

Eurocentrism

The concept of human security has developed out of the precepts put forth by the United
Nations, wherein there has been critique of Human Security's focus on what is deemed
acceptable behaviors. Human security perspectives view practices such as child marriage and
female genital mutilation as a threat to human (more specifically female) security and well-
being in the Global North, while it is more common that these events occur predominately in
the Global Southern states. Thus, it is seen by states with a traditional human security outlook,
to see it as their duty to intervene and perpetuate this Eurocentric ideal of what human security

97
looks like, and what is best to protect the familiar concept of women. This can be seen as an
infringement on the traditional practices found within some sovereign states of the Global
South, and a threat to ways of life and processes of development.

4.2.2. Peer-to-Peer Violence in the light of Human Security

Violence is a major cause of death and disability for American children. Violence or witnessing
violence has both physical and psychiatric sequelae, including posttraumatic stress disorder,
adjustment reactions, severe grief reactions, and depression.

Peer to Peer Violence is related with

Dating violence: means violence committed by a person who is or has been in a social
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim. The existence of a romantic or
intimate relationship will be determined based on the length of the relationship, the type of
relationship and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.

Family violence: means conduct, whether actual or threatened, by a person towards, or towards
the property of, a member of the person’s family that causes that or any other member of the
person’s family to fear for, or to be apprehensive about, his or her personal well-being or safety;

Workplace violence: means any incident in which an employee is abused, threatened or

assaulted during the course of his or her employment, and includes but is not limited to all
forms of harassment, bullying, intimidation and intrusive behaviors of a physical or emotional
nature.

Teen dating violence: means any act of physical, emotional or sexual abuse, including stalking,
harassing and threatening, that occurs between two students who are currently in or who have
recently been in a dating relationship.

Sexual violence: means any sexual act or act targeting a person’s sexuality, gender identity or
gender expression, whether the act is physical or psychological in nature, that is committed,
threatened or attempted against a person without the person’s consent, and includes sexual
assault, sexual harassment, stalking, indecent exposure, voyeurism and sexual exploitation.
Sexual abuse means actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether by force
or under unequal or coercive conditions.

98
4.3. How does Migration relate to Human Security?
Traditionally, security has been viewed through the prism of state security. As a result,
relatively few scholars have sought to conceptualize what may be termed the migration and
security nexus. However, the scope of security concerns is much broader than state security, and
is inclusive of human security. Human security is defined in a UNDP report as:
“An analytical tool that focuses on ensuring security for the individual, not the state ... ln line
with the expanded definition of human security, the causes of insecurity are subsequently
broadened to include threats to socio-economic and political conditions, food, health, and
environmental, community and personal safety ...”
Much migration from poorer countries is driven by the Jack of human security that finds
expression in impoverishment, inequality, violence, Jack of human rights and weak states. Such
political, social and economic underdevelopment is linked to histories of colonialism and the
present condition of global inequality. Where states are unable to create legal migration systems
for necessary labour, many migrants are also forced to move under conditions of considerable
insecurity. Smuggling, trafficking, bonded labour and Jack of human and worker rights are the
fate of millions of migrants. Even legal migrants may have an insecure residence status and be
vulnerable to economic exploitation, discrimination and racist violence. Sometimes legal
changes can push migrants into irregularity, as happened to the sans papiers (undocumented
migrants) in France in the 1990s. The frequent insecurity of the people of poorer countries is
often forgotten in discussions of state security, yet the two phenomena are closely linked.
Frequently, migrant insecurity is linked to perceived threats, an aspect of the aforementioned
mass psychological dimension, which can be divided into three categories: cultural, socio-
economic and political. The first perceived threat, the perception of migrant and migrant-
background populations as challenging the cultural status quo, may contribute most to migrant
insecurity. the religious identity and linguistic practices of migrants loom large in perceived
threats. the second perceived threat - migrant populations is as socio-economic threats. The third
perceived threat - migrants as potentially politically disloyal or subversive - includes migrant
populations such as Palestinians residing in Kuwait prior to the first Gulf War.
International migration has also had a significant impact on violent conflicts. Migration flows
can interact with other factors to foment violent conflict in several ways such as by providing
resources that fuel internal conflicts or by facilitating networks of organized crime. Migrant and

99
diasporic communities often provide financial aid and recruits to groups engaged in conflicts in
origin states.
The 'hyper-securitization' of migration after 9/11 resulted from incremental processes of
increasing securitization of migration that had already evolved in the l 980s and l 990s. There
are strong parallels between migration and security developments on both sides of the Atlantic
in the 1980s and 1990s. The 1985 signature of the Schengen Agreement can be seen as the
birthdate of a European policy on migration and security.
The attacks of 9/11 as well as those in Madrid and London transformed the decades-old, indeed
centuries-old, question of migrant incorporation in Western countries into an acute security
issue, not only in Europe but also in North America and Australia. ln recent years much has
been written about the susceptibility of migrant-background Muslims to mobilization into
terrorist movements.
Comparisons to other areas of the world reveal important contrasts with the dominant pattern of
what might be termed hyper-securitization in the transatlantic area since the l 990s. Geo-
strategically, due to its proximity to Europe in the transatlantic space, the Middle East and
North Africa MENA assumes enormous significance.

4.4. Human Security Disasters Associated with Migration

4.4.1. Human Rights Violations

Migrants in an irregular situation tend to be disproportionately vulnerable to discrimination,

exploitation and marginalization, often living and working in the shadows, afraid to complain,
and denied their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Human rights violations against migrants can include a denial of civil and political rights such
as arbitrary detention, torture, or a lack of due process, as well as economic, social and cultural
rights such as the rights to health, housing or education. The denial of migrants’ rights is often
closely linked to discriminatory laws and to deep-seated attitudes of prejudice or xenophobia .

The vulnerable situations that migrants face can arise from a range of situational and
personal factors that may intersect or coexist simultaneously, influencing and exacerbating
each other and also evolving or changing over time as circumstances change. Migrants may

100
find themselves in vulnerable situations as a result of the situations compelling them to
leave their country of origin, the circumstances in which they travel or the conditions they
face on arrival, or because of personal characteristics such as their age, gender identity,
race, disability or health status.

OHCHR works to promote, protect and fulfill the human rights of all migrants, regardless of
their status, with a particular focus on those migrants in vulnerable situations who are most
marginalized and at risk of human rights violations. OHCHR promotes a human rights-based
approach to migration, which places the migrant at the center of migration policies and
governance, and seeks to ensure that migrants are included in all relevant national action plans
and strategies, such as plans on the provision of public housing or national strategies to combat
racism and xenophobia.

4.4.2. Human Trafficking

Trafficking in persons/human trafficking is a crime against a person that involves the abuse of
his/ her human rights through exploitation. Human trafficking can also involve legal migration
methods between States. It can occur internally within countries and does not necessarily have
to be transnational in nature. Alternatively, human trafficking can involve the kidnapping or
abduction of a person who is then consequently subjected to forced migration. Human
trafficking often involves a number of additional offences against the trafficked persons that are
also in violation of human rights, for example, rape, physical abuse or unlawful confinement.

The United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially
Women and Children defines human trafficking under Article 3 (a) as follows: “Trafficking in
persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by
means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of
deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for
the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or
practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”

101
4.4.3. Gender and Sexual Based Violence
Gender-based violence is an umbrella term for any harmful act perpetrated against a person’s
will and based on socially ascribed gender differences that inflicts physical or mental harm or
suffering, threats of such acts, coercion, and other deprivations of liberty. It can occur in public
or in private and can, but does not have to, consist in acts of a sexual nature. It
disproportionately affects women and girls because of underlying gender inequality while they
are migrant.
Sexual violence is a form of gender-based violence and encompasses any sexual act, attempt to
obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise
directed against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their
relationship to the victim, in any setting. Sexual violence takes multiple forms and includes
rape, sexual abuse, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, forced abortion, forced prostitution,
trafficking, sexual enslavement, forced circumcision, castration and forced nudity.
The different forms of gender-based violence are outlined in the table below.
Physical  Slapping, shoving, pushing, punching, beating, scratching, choking, biting, grabbing,
violence shaking, spitting, burning, twisting of body parts, forced ingestion of unwanted substances
 Preventing access to medical treatment or other support
 Using objects as weapons to inflict injury
Sexual  Vaginal or anal rape
violence  Unwanted sexual touching
 Sexual harassment and demand for sexual acts in exchange for something
 Trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation
 Forced exposure to pornography
 Forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, forced abortion
 Forced marriage, early/child marriage
 Female genital mutilation/cutting
 Virginity testing and Incest
 Threats of violence or harm against friends or family through words or actions
Psychological/
emotional  Workplace harassment
violence  Humiliation and insults
 Isolation and restrictions on communication or movement

102
  Use of children by a violent intimate partner as a means of control or coercion
Economic  Exclusion from financial decision-making
violence  Withholding money or financial information
 Refusal to pay bills or provide resources for shared children
 Destruction of jointly owned assets

4.4.4. Public Health

Health and migration are linked and interdependent. Indeed, many of the same disparities that
drive the global spread of disease also drive migration. That is not to say that movement should
be stopped, but rather that the health implications have to be managed.
Governments are increasingly recognizing the need for a comprehensive approach to migration
health that goes beyond infectious diseases and border control to include migration related
health vulnerabilities, communicable diseases, mental health, occupational health, health
implications of climate change as well as access to health care and human rights issues.
With more people travelling faster and to more destinations, migration health is today a major
public health concern. The re-emergence of tuberculosis in developed parts of the world, the
rapid spread of HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and SARS (severe acute respiratory
syndrome) are only a few examples of the critical relationship between population mobility and
health. While migration itself is not, under normal circumstances, a risk to health, conditions
surrounding the migration process can increase vulnerability for ill health. Some of the health
risk factors are related to the circumstance before departure. Migrants depart with health
profiles which have been influenced by their socio-economic status and accessibility to health-
care services in their communities of origin. For instance, migrants who are fleeing poverty
or conflict are likely less healthy than migrants who move by choice.
The health of migrants is also affected by the conditions surrounding their movement. Irregular
migrants, trafficked and smuggled persons as well as those forced to move because of natural or
man-made disasters, are most vulnerable to poor health conditions, violence and lack of access
to adequate health care during the migration process. Risk factors upon destination are often
related to the legal status of migrants, which too frequently determines the level of access to
health and social service.

103
Further factors defining vulnerability to ill health and risk behaviors are stigma, discrimination
and linguistic and cultural barriers. Finally, the return of migrants to their place of origin may
imply returning to a location with high disease prevalence compared to the place where the
migrant resided temporarily, or it may imply introduction of health conditions acquired during
the migration process, into the home community.

4.5. Migrants’ Human Security and the Human Rights Framework

Human security undertakes to address a set of rights or freedoms that it is unacceptable to
ignore. While human security may be instrumentally useful to countries in other ways, one of
the motivational forces for human security is that it addresses what most would consider to be
the most basic and universal of human rights.

Second, human security and human rights address both violence and poverty; their subject
matter is complex. The international bill of human rights includes basic needs such as work,
education, food, self-determination, and healthcare. The same bill of human rights prohibits
torture, slavery, persecution on religious or racial ground, and direct killing, and another
Convention prohibits genocide. The identification protection and promotion of central facets of
human lives from the ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’ is the aim of human
security as well as human rights.

A further relationship between human security and human rights concerns issues of duty or
obligation. Different theories of human rights ground this obligation differently. Yet
governments and other institutions do, it is claimed, have a duty or obligation to respect human
rights whether these are perfect obligations or claim-rights between responsible actors, or
imperfect obligations towards those who can help, which evoke their solidarity and common
humanity. Human rights advocacy is a coherent undertaking precisely because any rights
violation obliges others to act.
The human rights approach defends the incommensurable value of a list of human rights, which
include freedom from torture and genocide, and the right for a woman to take paid leave after
childbirth. The human security approach necessarily addresses concrete security threats and
human rights threats individually or in smaller groupings. It recognizes that some human rights
conflict with one another, and that in real situation constraints of resources or political will
approaches usefully complement each other. And they may not be too terribly far apart.

104
For example the several measures of human security mentioned in section three all identify a set
of ‘co-realizable’ elements of human security and identify human security to be realized only
when all elements are present above a certain threshold. That is, the concept of human security
may, like human rights, entail that certain elements of human security are equally essential and
equally fundamental. But the conception of human security defended here leaves the question
open as to whether the elements of such a set are precisely the same as fundamental human
rights, and how they differ over time and space.
Human Security and human rights are likewise deeply interconnected. Both are concerned to
identify a rudimentary set of universal concerns that span poverty and violence. In fact
fundamental human rights are arguably an appropriate working set for the “vital core” of human
lives. However this paper leaves open the possibility that because of its focus on feasibility,
human security may not necessarily priorities all human rights equally, and in practice different
institutions that respect or promote human security will legitimately priorities and address only
certain rights and freedoms. Still, to the extent that human security concerns at least some
rights, institutions are clearly obligated to provide it.

Human security is indebted to the human rights tradition (the ideas of natural law and natural
rights). The development of the human security model can be seen to have drawn upon ideas
and concepts fundamental to the human rights tradition. Both approaches use the individual as
the main referent and both argue that a wide range of issues (i.e. civil rights, cultural
identity, access to education and healthcare) are fundamental to human dignity. A major
difference between the two models is in their approach to addressing threats to human dignity
and survival. Whilst the human rights framework takes a legalistic approach, the human security
framework, by utilizing a diverse range of actors, adopts flexible and issue-specific approaches,
which can operate at local, national or international levels.

The nature of the relationship between human security and human rights is contested among
human security advocates. Some human security advocates argue that the goal of human
security should be to build upon and strengthen the existing global human rights legal
framework. However, other advocates view the human rights legal framework as part of the
global insecurity problem and believe that a human security approach should propel us to move

105
above and beyond this legalistic approach to get at the underlying sources of inequality and
violence which are the root causes of insecurity in today's world.

CHAPTER FIVE: MIGRATION AND HUMAN SECURITY IN ETHIOPIA

5.1 Migration Policies/Laws

5.2 Trends and Patterns of Migration in Ethiopia

5.3 The Root Causes of Migration

5.4 Migration and Governance in Ethiopia

5.5 Governance of Migration and Human Security in Ethiopia

5.6 Opportunities and Challenges of Migrants

106