HUMAN SECURITY:

A STRUCTURAL
PERSPECTIVE

Rita Iorbo, PhD

Assistant Professor

Jindal School of International Affairs

O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat.

Email: riorbo@jgu.edu.in

1
What is Violence?
 Violence is often understood as the use or threat of force that can result in injury, harm,
deprivation or even death. It may be physical, verbal or psychological.

 The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines violence as "intentional use of physical
force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group
or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death,
psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation".

2
What is Violence?
 Violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual
somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations (Galtung,
1969:168).

 This description of violence rejects the narrow concept of violence as somatic

incapacitation, or deprivation of health, alone (with killing as the extreme form), at the
hands of an actor who intends this to be the consequence.

 Violence is here defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the
actual, between what could have been and what is. Violence is that which increases the
distance between the potential and the actual, and that which impedes the decrease of
this distance.

3
What is Violence?
 Example: Death from tuberculosis in the 18th century would be hard to conceive as
violence since it might have been quite unavoidable, but death from same disease in the
21st century despite all the medical resources in the world, then violence is present
according to our definition.

 Galtung is of the view that the main violence is of two types. Direct violence which
destroys the physical and indirect violence which is inbuilt in the system and not feasible
to the eyes. In his analysis, he took a direct departure in explaining or defining the
physical or direct form of violence, and therefore, expanded understanding of violence to
include non-physical actions or inactions that hinder the realization of our potential.

Galtung refers to realization of potential as What is vs What should have been.

4
Violence
 Galtung’s definition of violence as the constraints on human potential allows for a
broad understanding of violence in its many forms, of which Galtung identifies three
types of violence, which are all present in the nation-state.

Types of Violence
 Direct
 Cultural
 Structural

5
1. Direct Violence
 Direct
Violence: Galtung begins with direct violence, which he also refers to as
personal violence, and describes it as when there is an identifiable actor who commits
violence (Galtung, 1969:170). In this case, the nation-state can be on either side of the
violence as the perpetrator or victim.
 He argues that violence with a clear subject-object relation is manifest because it is
visible as action. It corresponds to our ideas of what drama is, and it is personal
because there are persons committing the violence. Violence without this relation is
structural, built into structure. Thus, when one husband beats his wife there is a clear
case of personal violence, but when one million husbands keep one million wives in
ignorance there is structural violence.
 Direct Violence, e.g. physical or behavioural violence such as war, bullying, domestic
violence, exclusion or torture
 It involves the use of physical force

6
1. Direct Violence
 Direct violence is visible, intentional, and directly targets known victim(s)
 Attributable to a person or group of persons – that is, there is a physical perpetrator
 An assault or encroachment on physical body of another/others and/or their property
 Wars, etc.

All these and more, relate to State Security challenges

7
2. Structural Violence
 Structural Violence: Galtung’s conception of structural violence differs from direct violence in
that it is built into the system (Galtung, 1969:171). Galtung himself refers to it as social injustice
because there is unequal power and unequal life opportunities (Galtung, 1969:171), despite the
means to resolve these issues.

 Johan Galtung describes it as the “avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs or…the
impairment of human life, which lowers the actual degree to which someone is able to meet their
needs below that which would otherwise be possible”. Structural violence is often embedded in
longstanding, ubiquitous social structures, normalized by stable institutions and regular
experience. Because they seem so ordinary in our ways of understanding the world, they appear
almost invisible, and oftentimes, acceptable.

 Examples of Structural violence, e.g. poverty and deprivation of basic resources and access to
rights; oppressive systems that enslave, intimidate, and abuse dissenters as well as the poor,
powerless and marginalised

8
Structural Violence
Structural violence is often embedded in longstanding, ubiquitous social structures,
normalized by stable institutions and regular experience. Because they seem so
ordinary in our ways of understanding the world, they appear almost invisible, and
oftentimes, acceptable.

9
Structural Violence
Structural violence describes the difference between the potential and actual somatic
and mental achievements of people.

It occurs in any situation in which some people are unable to achieve their capacities or
capabilities to their full potential, and almost certainly if they are unable do so to the
same extent as others.

The violence is called structural violence because:

◦ It is impossible to identify a single actor who commits the violence
◦ Violence is impersonal, built into the structures of power

10
Forms of Structural Violence
 Structural violence manifests in different forms which remain invisible
and is often accepted as a norm rather than an institutionalized
violence. Some examples of this form of violence are:
 Poverty
 Corruption
 Policies & laws
 Discrimination
 Marginalisation, etc.

11
 Forms of structural violence
 Poverty as a form of violence" refers to the idea that the extreme deprivation and lack of basic
necessities experienced by people living in poverty can be considered a form of violence against
them, as it systematically denies them their fundamental human rights and can lead to significant
suffering, often comparable to physical harm; this concept is particularly associated with Mahatma
Gandhi's statement that "poverty is the worst form of violence.”

 Corruption as a form of violence: the diversion of resources meant to serve people and
communities lead to deprivation and lack. This entrenches poverty and exacerbates human
suffering leading to death. Example, diversion of resources for healthcare.

Policies & laws as forms of violence: When injustice is in-built in the system, it manifests as
violence. Discriminatory laws and policies affect people differently. Example, some religious laws
or policies tend to disproportionately affect women and lead to gender based violence.

12
Forms of structural Violence
 Discrimination as a form of violence: Discrimination in all its possible forms and
expressions is one of the most common forms of human rights violations and abuse. It
affects millions of people everyday and it is one of the most difficult to recognise. It leads
to inequality in the treatment of people in society leading to unequal opportunities and
privileges.
 Marginalisation: Marginalization can be considered a form of violence because it
systematically excludes and deprives individuals or groups from accessing basic rights,
opportunities, and societal benefits, causing significant harm to their well-being and
dignity, often with long-lasting negative impacts, even if not directly physical in nature;
essentially, it is a form of structural violence that operates through systemic inequalities
and power imbalances.

13
Structural Violence
 Under Structural Violence, Galtung asks, “can we talk about violence when nobody is
committing direct violence, is acting?” While he referred to personal or direct as the type
of violence where there is an actor that commits the violence, structural or indirect
violence is where there is no such actor.

Moreover, under structural violence, resources are unevenly distributed, as when income
distributions are heavily skewed, literacy/education unevenly distributed, medical
services existent in some districts and for some groups only, and so on.' Above all the
power to decide over the distribution of resources is unevenly distributed. The situation is
aggravated further if the persons low on income are also low in education, low on health,
and low on power - as is frequently the case because these rank dimensions tend to be
heavily correlated due to the way they are tied together in the social structure.

14
Direct violence &
Structural/indirect violence
In both direct violence and structural violence, individuals may be killed or mutilated, hit
or hurt, and even manipulated. But whereas in personal/direct violence, these
consequences can be traced back to concrete persons as actors, in the case of structural
violence, there may not be any person who directly harms another person in the
structure. The violence is built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and
consequently as unequal life chances.

15
3. Cultural Violence
 Cultural Violence: Finally, Galtung introduces the concept of cultural
violence, which is also indirect violence like structural violence. It includes
aspects of culture ‘that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or
structural violence’ (Galtung, 1990:291).

 Examples of cultural violence include beliefs, attitudes, values,

behaviours, and other forms of moral exclusion that rationalise
aggression, domination, inequity, and oppression.

16
TRIANGLE DIRECT VIOLENCE

OF Wars. Physical, direct assault. All

seen physical acts of violence with
VIOLENCE a clear perpetrator and victims

? Visible
Violence

Invisible
Violence

CULTURAL VIOLENCE STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE

Fear. Hatred. Negative Poverty. Corruption. Policies &
perceptions regarding ability. laws. Discrimination.
dismissiveness Marginalisation. Exclusion. Unequal
opportunities

17
 Structural vs Direct Violence
STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE DIRECT VIOLENCE
 Targeted Victims: Social Groups  Targeted Victim: Individual
 Though there is a victim, someone who is
injured by the inequities of social
arrangements- it is hard to identify a perpetrator Requires a perpetrator who commits the
violent act, and a victim is injured by the action

 Absence of intention
 Presence of intention
 It is normalized
 It is criminal, unacceptable by society
 It is inbuilt into structures
 It is against acceptable societal norms, laws
 It functions as a system that constitutes the and culture
norms, laws and culture

18
 HUMAN
SECURITY:
Definitions, Types & Features

Rita Iorbo, PhD

Assistant Professor
Jindal School of International Affairs
O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat
19
WHY HUMAN SECURITY?
 According to the Commission on Human security, the need for a paradigm
shift from the sole focus on traditional security alone to a non-traditional
security is based on two dynamics:
1. The need to respond to some interrelated and interconnected complex threats
such as hunger, poverty, human rights issues, ethnic violence, climate change,
pandemics, terrorism, unemployment, human trafficking, etc. that affect human
beings and threaten peaceful co-existences of communities

2. The need for a human security with a comprehensive approach which utilizes the
wide range of new opportunities that tackle threats in an integrated and holistic
manner.

For example, 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.

20
 HUMAN SECURITY: Definition
Human Security is “… 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.” (CHS: 2003: 4)

21
 HS: Definition
 Human Security as a new way of THINKING & DOING THINGS, re-
conceptualizes security in a fundamental way by:

(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.

22
 MAIN FEATURES/CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN
SECURITY

Human security brings together the ‘human elements’ of security, rights and
development.
As an inter-disciplinary concept, HS has five main characteristics to address
threats to individual and community security as follows:
1. People-centered

2. Multi-sectoral

3. Comprehensive

4. Context-specific

5. Prevention-oriented

23
MAIN FEATURES/CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN SECURITY

1. PEOPLE-CENTERED: Having people at the centre of security ‘centre of

analysis’ and not the national armed security. It focuses on a broad range of
issues that threaten human survival, livelihoods, safety and dignity of person,
and identifies the threshold below which human life is most vulnerably
threatened by these existential circumstances. For example;

2. MULTI-SECTORAL: Focuses on a multi-sectoral understanding insecurities

that threaten individuals and communities. Human security thus entails a broad-
based understanding of existing and potential threats which cut across seven
sectors as follows: [1] economic, [2] food, [3] health, [4] environmental, [5]
personal, [6] community and [7] political security.

24
MAIN FEATURES/CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN
SECURITY
3. COMPREHENSIVE APPROACHES: Human security MUST address ROOT
CAUSES and the full extent of these threats on individuals and communities,
but not limited to, violent conflicts, impoverishment, disasters, health issues
like diseases, epidemics, pandemics, etc., and their interdependencies across
all sectors and geographies. Therefore, it is not enough to address one sector
or community in isolation. (EXAMPLE: NEGATIVE & POSITIVE PEACE)

4. CONTEXT-SPECIFIC: Human security acknowledges that insecurities vary

considerably across different settings and as such advances context-specific
solutions to address particular situations they seek to address. i.e., one
size does not fit all.

25
MAIN FEATURES/CHARACTERISTICS OF
HUMAN SECURITY
5. PREVENTION-ORIENTED: In addressing threats and root causes of
insecurities, human security adopts prevention-oriented measures and
introduces a two-fold focus on two Strategies known as [1] PROTECTION and
[2] EMPOWERMENT.

PROTECTION & EMPOWERMENT are therefore, mutually

reinforcing. In order to achieve Human Security, empowerment
and protection cannot be applied in isolation. Both of them are
required in almost all areas of human insecurity.

26
 WHAT PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT
MEANS FOR ACHIEVING HUMAN SECURITY
Protection and empowerment of people are the two building blocks for achieving the goal of
human security.

Protection- Refers to “strategies, set up by states, international agencies, NGOs and the
private sector, [to] shield people from menaces” (CHS: 2003:10). It refers to the norms,
processes and institutions required to protect people from critical and pervasive threats.

Protection implies a "top-down" approach. It recognises that people face threats that are
beyond their control (e.g., natural disasters, financial crises and conflicts). Human security
therefore requires protecting people in a systematic, comprehensive and preventative
way. States have the primary responsibility to implement such a protective structure.
However, international and regional organizations; civil society and non-governmental
actors; and the private sector also play a pivotal role in shielding people from menaces.

27
WHAT PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT
MEANS…

Empowerment:- “strategies that enable people to develop their resilience to difficult

situations”.

Empowerment implies a “bottom up” approach. It aims at developing the capabilities

of individuals and communities to make informed choices and to act on their own
behalf. Empowering people not only enables them to develop their full potential but it
also allows them to find ways and to participate in solutions to ensure human security
for themselves and others.

Protection and empowerment thus means that it is not just enough to react to
threats against the State and strengthen national security borders and be combat
ready. But also, to PREVENT rights violations, victimization, deprivation,
marginalization, hunger, natural disasters, etc. and help people and communities to
build capacity.

28
PILLARS OF HUMAN
SECURITY

29
PILLARS OF HUMAN SECURITY
The Concept of Human Security is built on three PILLARS that
encompass three fundamental freedoms. These pillars signify the
essence for a paradigm shift from traditional security to human
security. These pillars are-
 Freedom From Fear
 Freedom From Want; and
 Freedom From Indignity [or Freedom to Live in Dignity]

30
PILLARS OF HUMAN SECURITY
FREEDOM FROM FEAR
Freedom from fear refers to the right to live without fear of violence,
persecution, oppression, terrorism, war, etc. It focuses on protecting
individuals from threats that challenge their security and physical
integrity. These many include protection from wars, direct violence;
terrorism, persecution, disease, disasters, crime, etc.

Freedom from fear is backed by International frameworks such as United

Nations Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Geneva
Conventions, Convention Against Torture (CAT), International Criminal
Court (ICC), which prohibits torture, guarantees the exercise and
protection of human, prohibits certain crimes against humanity, etc.

31
PILLARS...

 FREEDOM FROM WANT: Freedom from Want refers to the right to have access
to basic needs, ensuring a decent standard of living, free from: poverty, hunger,
malnutrition, disease, economic insecurity. This freedom aims at protecting people
and helping them meet their basic needs and the economic, social and
environmental aspects of life and livelihoods like helping with access to
employment, livelihoods, access to education, healthcare, shelters, etc.

 FREEDOM FROM INDIGNITY : Freedom from indignity refers to the right to be

treated with respect, dignity, and worth, free from humiliation, degradation,
discrimination, stigma, oppression, etc. It is the promotion of improved quality of
life and human welfare which allows people to make choices in their best interests.
 Freedom from indignity is supported by international frameworks such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention Against Torture (CAT), Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

32
 Social Contract
Rita Iorbo, PhD
Assistant Professor
Jindal School of International Affairs
O.P. Jindal Global University, India
33
WHAT IS SOCIAL CONTRACT?
Social Contract based on the political philosophies of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and
other early modern theorists. They describe actual or hypothetical Social Contract
among Citizens to form a Civil Society.

According to Social Contract, in the beginning man lived in the state of nature. They
had no government and there was no law to regulate them. There were hardships
and oppression on the sections of the society.

To overcome from these hardships, they entered into two agreements which are:-
1. Pactum Unionis; and
2. Pactum Subjectionis.

34
WHAT IS SOCIAL CONTRACT?
Pactum Unionis: Under the Pactum Unionis, people sought protection of their lives
and property. As a result of it, a society was formed where people undertook to
respect each other and live in peace and harmony

Pactum Subjectionis: in Pactum Subjectionis, people united together and pledged to

obey an authority and surrendered the whole or part of their fundamental freedoms
and rights to an authority.

Thus, a social contract is an implicit agreement THAT was MADE amongst Citizens to
form a Civil Society known as a STATE that Guides the Conduct of Individual, Group
and Institutional Conduct.

35
WHAT IS SOCIAL CONTRACT?
In this regard, Citizens Consented and Willingly Relinquished some of their rights in
order to establish this civil society

By relinquishing some of their powers and rights, CITIZENS AGREE to live together
in society in accordance with implicitly agreed contract that defines the moral and
political rules of human and institutional behaviour

36
Analysis of the theory of Social Contract

 Three scholars provided analyses of the Social Contract. They are

 Thomas Hobbes
 John Locke
 Jean Jacques Rousseau

37
 Thomas Hobbes’ analysis
 According to Thomas Hobbes, prior to the Social Contract, man lived in the State of Nature. Man’s life in the State of
NATURE was one of fear, selfishness and chaos.

 Man’s life in the State of Nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
 That man has a natural desire for security and order. Which led into a social contract.
 In order to secure self protection and self-preservation, and to avoid misery and pain, man entered into a contract.
 To achieve security & order, man voluntarily surrendered ALL THEIR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS TO SOME AUTHORITY
 In exchange, the authority MUST command obedience.
 As a result of this contract, the MIGHTIEST AUTHORITY is the protection and preservation of life and property.
 This led to the emergence of the institution of the “ruler” or “monarch” who shall be the ABSOLUTE head.

38
 John Locke’s analysis
 John Locke perspective of the social contract differs from that of Hobbes. According to Locke, man lived in the State
of Nature, but his concept of the State of Nature is not as miserable as that of Hobbes.
 While Hobbes described life in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, Locke viewed the
state of nature as “reasonably good and enjoyable, but the property was not secure. He considered State of Nature
as a Golden Age”, and a state of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation” .
 Locke emphasized two things:
1. Human Relations
2. Property acquisition

 In Human Relations & the State of Nature: Whereas, Hobbes states that man’s State of Nature was brutish,
selfishness, nastiness, and chaotic, Locke’s State of Nature was reasonably good and enjoyable, but the property was
not secure. He considered State of Nature as a “Golden Age”. It was a state of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and
preservation”.

 In Locke’s State of Natures, men had all the rights which nature could give them.

 It was a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one’s life as one best sees fit

39
John Locke’s analysis
 All people were equal and independent. But people were not free to do things just as they
wished.

 That though the State of Nature had no authority or government to punish wrongdoing, it was
guided by morality

 In the State of Nature, people were assumed to be equal, and equally capable of discovering
and being bound by the Law of Nature.

 It was a “state of liberty”, where people were free to pursue their own interests and plans, free
from interference and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon
persons, it was relatively peaceful.

40
John Locke’s analysis
 Property Acquisition: Property played a significant role in Locke’s argument for a civil government and
the contract that established it.

 In the state of nature, Locke argued that there was a limit to which one could own property from nature
more than they could use because it was freely given to mankind of their survival.

 No one should take more than their share of nature

 Property is the central element of Locke for the Social Contract

41
John Locke’s analysis

 John Locke considered property in the State of Nature as insecure because of three conditions:-
1. Absence of established law;

2. Absence of impartial Judge; and

3. Absence of natural power to execute natural laws.

 The Social Contract was entered into to Protect Property.

 Under Locke’s social contract, Man DID NOT surrender ALL Rights to one single BUT did surrender only
the RIGHT TO PRESERVE property, MAINTAIN order and ENFORCE the laws of nature.

 People retained with them other rights - i.e., right to life, liberty and estate because these rights were
considered natural and inalienable rights of men.

42
John Locke’s analysis
 The creation of a political society and government through their consent, men gained three things which they
lacked in the State of Nature:
1. Laws,

2. Judges to adjudicate laws, and

3. The executive power necessary to enforce these laws.

 Each man therefore gives over the power to protect himself and punish transgressors of the Law of Nature to the

government that he has created through the compact.

 According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and protect the natural rights of men.

 So long as the Government fulfils this purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding but, when it ceases to
fulfil it, then the laws would have no validity and the Government can be thrown out of power. In Locke’s view,
unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law.
43
John Locke’s analysis
 John Locke’s social contract advocated
1. A State of Liberty

2. A state for the general good of people.

3. A constitutionally limited government.

 Locke, in fact made life, liberty and property, his three cardinal rights, which greatly dominated and
influenced the Declaration of American Independence, 1776

44
Jean Jacques Rousseau’s analysis
 Rousseau was a French philosopher. His interpretation is that the Social Contract is NOT A HISTORICAL
FACT but a HYPOTHETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF REASON.
Like Locke, Rousseau provided a happier account of life in the state of nature. He argued that life in the
State of Nature was happy and there was equality among men.
 However, as time passed, humanity faced certain changes such as population increase, and changes in
the means by which people could satisfy their needs.
 The challenges drew people together to live in small families, and then in small communities.
 Humans also introduced Divisions of labour, both within and between families, and
 Humans also made Discoveries and inventions that made life easier and gave rise to leisure time.

45
Jean Jacques Rousseau’s analysis
 Rousseau opined that the original freedom, happiness, equality and liberty which existed in primitive
societies prior to the social contract was lost in the modern civilisation. Through Social Contract, a new
form of social organisation- known as THE STATE was formed to assure and guarantee rights, liberties
freedom and equality.

 The General Will: Voluntary surrendering of the rights to form a State. Sees the majority view is right
over minority view.

 In return for surrendering their liberties, the populace would be protected and guaranteed civil liberties
such as freedom of speech, equality, assembly, etc.

 People as Sovereignty: The General Will sees people SOVEREIGNTY and upholds that where and when
the State fails in its duties to the people who are sovereign, the State would be discarded and a new one
formed.

46
Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau
 Hobbes- Absolute and unlimited powers/control in the hands of the State over the people provided it
keeps the population safe and stable. Absolutism is necessary because people are always at war, nasty,
brutish, and bloody without rules and laws. Therefore, surrendering all their rights and liberties to the
ruler or monarch.

 Locke & Rousseau: were of the view that the state exists to preserve and protect the natural rights of its
citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right and sometimes the duty to
withdraw their support and even to rebel.

 Hobbes opines that whatever the state does is just. All of society is a direct creation of the state, and a
reflection of the will of the ruler.
 Locke, holds that the state exists to ensure that justice is seen to be done.
 Rousseau argues that the State must in all circumstance ensure freedom and liberty of individuals.
 Hobbes supports absolute sovereignty without giving any value to individuals. Locke and Rousseau
support individual as Sovereign over the state or the government.

47
BROKEN SOCIAL CONTRACT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqCkSrJeieU

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2022/04/montage-open-book-broken-social-contract

What is a broken social contract?

A broken social contract refers to a situation where the implicit agreement between
citizens and their government or institutions has been violated or compromised. It also
refers to the abuse of trust by one or all the parties in the social contract.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qALtKIKSiIE

48