Ralf Bodelier. Conference on Transitional Justice. Kigali, Rwanda. July 2011 Paper.
There is a new cosmopolitanism in the air, serving as a mindset essential to the process of globalization. This new cosmopolitanism brought forth at least two policy concepts, human development and human security. Where human development focuses exclusively on the interests of the other, human security deals with both the interests of the other and those of the self.
Like new cosmopolitanism, the Human Security concept emerged around 1995, in the aftermath of the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica. Both atrocities accelerated the importance of Human Security, especially the principle of Responsibility to Protect R2P. Following the genocide in Rwanda and the international community’s failure to intervene, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked an important question. “When does the international community intervene for the sake of protecting populations?” Approaching the 20thcommemorations of the Genocide, the international community is answering in Libya. When Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadaffi called the protesters “cockroaches” and “rats” who did not deserve to live, he remembered the international community of the broadcasts of the Rwandan Radio Mille Collines, which spurred on the perpetrators of Rwanda’s genocide in 1994. One week later the UN Security Council ordered airstrikes.
A new cosmopolitanism
Whereas the last decennia of the 20th century were characterized by globalization, the first decennium of the 21st century clearly shows increased interest in the mindset of globalization: cosmopolitanism. Or rather: New Cosmopolitanism.
Cosmopolitanism is a moral and political concept. The concept of an ideal community, which contrary to traditional communities, does not exist by virtue of excluding the other. Whereas a traditional community is organized around exclusive concepts like family, tribe, people, religion or nation, and ignores, excludes, conquers, assimilates or even kills those that do not belong to this family, tribe, people, religion or nation, cosmopolitanism focuses on an inclusive principle, on the belief that a number of basic human values allow people to unite. These human values are equality, mutual respect, tolerance, justice, non-violence and compassion.
In turn, these human values protect that what makes man human: his intrinsic dignity; the fact that he can never be a means to an end – he can only be the end itself. Immanuel Kant clearly distinguishes between dignity and value. Whereas values are always ascribed by people, human dignity is original, it is an absolute inner value. The human values that aim to protect human dignity therefore coincide with what Kant called “the moral law within me,” as a compelling and basic notion of right and wrong; A notion that without being hampered by religious or regional moral codes or views includes a fundamental idea of what our society is and what it should be.
A global community based on dignity, or rather human dignity, protected by human values. This is the essence of cosmopolitanism. New cosmopolitanism claims that this rather abstract form of global citizenship can exist next to a mild form of patriotism. “What makes modern cosmopolitanism modern, is not so much that it stands for a universal human community over and above local loyalties, but rather that it seeks to reconcile the idea of universal species wide human solidarity with particular solidarities that are smaller and more specific than the human species,” states sociologist Robert Fine. Philosopher Alain Finkielkraut chooses the following words: “To give the other what he is due, to honour him as a human being and as other, to acknowledge the similarities and at the same time welcome the differences between people, who would not embrace this great ambition?”
The main difference between our time and Immanuel Kant’s 18th century is that exploring the world is no longer the exclusive domain of a select group of intellectuals, merchants or the establishment. There are practically no limits to travel, economies the world over have almost completely merged into a global economy, global networks of the Internet, radio, television, telephone and newspaper; all these phenomena make it possible for increasingly large numbers of people to follow what is happening in the lives of others. It also opens ways to intervene in the lives of others or to assume a degree of responsibility.
In a global community it is also possible to finally be a true kosmou politês. For the first time in history we can actually test the cosmopolitan philosophy in real life.
“The important fact now is that the human condition has itself become cosmopolitan,” writes Ulrich Beck, one of the world’s most leading thinkers where globalization is concerned: “We need only highlight the fact that the most recent avatar in the genealogy of global risks, the threat of terror, also knows no borders. The same is true in the protest against the war in Iraq. For the first time a war was treated as an event in global domestic politics, with the whole of humanity participating simultaneously through the mass media. (…) In this way cosmopolitanism has ceased to be merely a controversial rational idea; in however distorted form, it has left the realm of philosophical castles in the air and has entered reality.”
Since the start of the new millennium new cosmopolitanism has become the subject of intellectual discourse among a wide range of academics; not only Martha Nussbaum, Robert Fine, Kwame Anthony Appiah and Alain Finkielkraut, but also Peter Singer, Amartya Sen, Jacques Derrida and Jürgen Habermas. They all elaborate on the idea that this global view, this cosmopolitan state of mind, is essential in order to recognize and address global issues. Moreover, they are all convinced that – in whatever form – this new cosmopolitanism is here to stay.
New cosmopolitanism, a twentieth century phenomenon with a focus on human values which protect human dignity; it has so far brought us two major concepts: Human Development and Human Security.
The first and most widely known concept is that of human development. This concept continually stresses the unacceptability of extreme poverty. Viewing the world in terms of human development started in the early eighties of the last century. Before that, it was customary to define development in terms of economic development, i.e. economic growth and national income.
Human development left this economic perspective and began to focus on a much wider sense of development. Using the mottoPeople First, human development pioneers told us that development first and foremost has to focus on actual people and on the potential of people to bring about actual change in their situation. The United Nations Development Program states on its website that human development stands for “creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests. People are the real wealth of nations. Development is thus about expanding the choices people have to lead lives that they value.”
The human development concept was designed in 1980 by the Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq and has since been used by the UNDP in its annual Human Development Reports. Ul Haq’s human development vision is to a large extent based on thecapabilities approach developed by Amartya Sen. This economist, who finds a supporter in philosopher Martha Nussbaum, believes development should not be focusing on e.g. economic growth or alleviation of hunger and disease, in fact it should augment people’s potential and thus enable them to develop themselves. Sen states: “Capabilities are the range of things that people can do or be in life. The most basic capabilities for human development are to lead long and healthy lives, to be knowledgeable, to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living and to be able to participate in the life of the community. Without these, many choices are simply not available, and many opportunities in life remain inaccessible.”
The most tangible and widely known implementation of the human development concept is found in the Millennium Development Goals. Contrary to earlier economic programs, these goals embody the first development plan that is closely connected to new cosmopolitanism; this is mainly due to the practical approach of “Human Development Meets Result-Based Management.” It (the plan) also fits in with moral globalization, the willingness of those in the wealthy and safe north to dedicate themselves to less poverty and insecurity in the south. Many western nations use these goals to prioritize within their aid programs. The Netherlands, for instance, chose HIV/AIDS, water, environment and reproductive health as main objectives of their aid policy, not arbitrarily but mainly because they contribute to the Millennium Goals.
“Accelerating progress in human development and eradicating the worst forms of human poverty are within our reach, despite challenges and setbacks. We know what to do. And the world has the resources needed to do it. Success is now to be found in strengthening partnerships, building political momentum for reform and pledging strong commitments for action followed by real action.”
The realization of the Human Development Concept by means of the Millennium Goals is widely supported, by the United States, countries in the EU and Japan, but also by such institutions as the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD. Through these Millennium Goals the human development concept also attracts a lot of support and attention from the general public. The June 2005 Live8 concerts – Make Poverty History – were aired by 182 television channels and 2000 radio stations. The broadcasters stated they reached three billion people.
Not only human development but also human security is closely connected to the human values of new cosmopolitanism. Human security may even be more closely connected, although the concept is relatively new and not as widely known as human development.
In a way human security is both a further specialization and an extension of human development. It was Mahbub ul Haq, the designer of the Human Development Index, who placed human security on the global agenda in 1994. The same year the Rwandan Genocide shocked the world. In the 1994 Human Development Report New Dimensions in Human Security Ul Haq again adheres to the People First concept. However, he now argues that realistic options for people to actively change their situations should also include a security component.
Where human development focuses exclusively on a long and healthy life, on education and access to health care, human security also mentions violation of human rights and vulnerability caused by crime and political violence. The most widely accepted and discussed concept of human security includes seven subcategories: 1. Economic security, 2. Food security,3. Health security, 4. Environmental security, 5. Personal security, 6. Community security and 7. Political security.
The first four are well-known to most, as they are included verbatim in the Millennium Development Goals. Inclusion of the last three lends human security a considerably more comprehensive scope than human development. It rightly focuses on those areas that have been unjustly neglected by the aid industry, such as personal, communal and political security.
We know, after all, that extreme poverty is not limited to un(der)employment, hunger, disease and an exhausted environment. Large-scale research among the most severely deprived (Voices of the Poor project in 2000) shows that the extreme poor experience lack of security as an immense problem. Moreover, a large majority state that they feel a lot less safe than during the late eighties of the last century.
By attaching this much importance to the security aspect, human security – more powerfully than human development – represents the new cosmopolitan ambition or dream as some would have it, that the Good Life must be within everyone’s reach. “Everyone” includes not only the slum dweller in Kigali, but also the single mother in the notoriously criminal Watts District in Los Angeles and the business man in his Kyoto gated community.
It is an all-encompassing claim, made more explicit by the authors of the 1994 Human Development Report. Thus, they state 1. Human security is a universal concern. It is relevant to people everywhere in the world. 2. The seven components are interdependent and interwoven at the global level 3. Human Security focuses on prevention rather than intervention. 4. Human Security focuses on people rather than nations. 
This broad concept of human security makes for an even more ambitious goal than that of its already ambitious predecessor human development.
Human Security is “a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, an ethnic tension that did not explode, a dissident who was not silenced, a human spirit that was not crushed.”
The concept is not only more ambitious because it includes a rather high level of international relations, human rights and crime prevention. Its main asset is that it has extended its territory to the global level. Where human development had restricted its focus to the one and a half billion extremely poor in the south, human security addresses all six billion people worldwide. Not only the slum dweller in poverty stricken Zambia may count on the protection of human security, but also the well-to-do citizen of the Netherlands.
Contrary to human development, human security does not place the major safety threats a priori in the south. The architects of human security state that in a globalized world, each individual is confronted with severe instances of insecurity. Those in the west no less than those in the south. Human security, argued Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, one of its most prominent advocates, “(It) is, in essence, an effort to construct a global society where the safety of the individual is at the centre of international priorities and a motivating force for international action.”
Human Security and the Rwandan Genocide.
The Human Development Report New Dimensions in Human Security (1994) should not be seen as an isolated publication of its time. Although, Human Security emphasises its focus is not merely on the South, undoubtedly developments in the South, especially in Africa, accelerated the growth and importance of the concept. In – again – 1994 American journalist Robert Kaplan published a well read article The Coming Anarchy. Kaplan travelled West Africa intensively and predicted that what he saw in countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone, would also become Europe’s and America’s fate.
“West Africa is becoming the symbol of worldwide demographic, environmental, and societal stress, in which criminal anarchy emerges as the real ‘strategic’ danger. Disease, overpopulation, unprovoked crime, scarcity of resources, refugee migrations, the increasing erosion of nation-states and international borders, and the empowerment of private armies, security firms, and international drug cartels are now most tellingly demonstrated through a West African prism. West Africa provides an appropriate introduction to the issues, often extremely unpleasant to discuss, that will soon confront our civilization. To remap the political earth the way it will be a few decades hence – as I intend to do in this article – I find I must begin with West Africa.”
It wasn’t West Africa, it was Central Africa that confronted ‘our’ civilisation. One of the most tragic aspects of the Rwandan genocide was our awareness how easily the killings could have been prevented by concerted international action, states Gerald Caplan, a scholar, studying the Rwandan Genocide intensively. “I often wonder”, Caplan says, “what would have happened if the Pope had flown in and met with the Rwandan government about stopping the increased violence. With a 60 percent Catholic population.” Caplan doubts the Rwandan Government could ignore a direct message from the Pope and overlook all of the local nuns and priests on the ground reinforcing the Pope’s urge for peace. Similarly, the French government had a special relationship with the Rwandan government and could have strategically used its influence to curb the violence. “If the UN Security Council sent a force of 5,000 with an appropriate mandate, I suspect the outcome would have also been different. The fact that a small contingent of UN peacekeepers was present on the ground during the violence but did little to stop it is proof of the UN’s great failure.” 
Gerald Caplan points towards a very tragic aspect of the Rwandan Genocide. We, the non-Rwandese, could have stopped the genocide rather easily, but we didn’t do anything to prevent the genocidaires from committing these crimes. We were the bystanders, not interfering while the possibilities to do so at low cost where at hand.
“The Rwandan genocide represents one of the worst human security failures, and the consequences still reverberate through the Great Lakes region of Africa nearly ten years later”, writes the Commission on Human Security in 2003. “Therefore, realizing human rights lies at the core of protecting and empowering people.”
In an address to the 54th session of the UN General Assembly in September 1999, Secretary-General Kofi Annan reflected upon “the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century.” He too recalled the failures of the Security Council to act in Rwanda and Srebrenica, and challenged the member states of the UN to “find common ground in upholding the principles of the Charter, and acting in defence of our common humanity.” The Secretary-General warned that “If the collective conscience of humanity cannot find in the United Nations its greatest tribune, there is a grave danger that it will look elsewhere for peace and for justice.” In his Millennium Report to the General Assembly a year later, he restated the dilemma, and repeated the challenge. “if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”
In 2005 The United Nations adopted the principle “Responsibility to Protect”. R2P holds that when a sovereign state fails to prevent atrocities, or when a sovereign state is committing crimes against humanity, like genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing, foreign governments may intervene to stop them. R2P goes not without discussion. Human-rights advocates say it saves lives. Sceptics see it as a cover for imperialism. However, both Human-rights advocates and sceptics shared, until March 2011, the idea that R2P is merely hot air. R2P is a principle, a doctrine perhaps, but not a law or an obligation. In embracing R2P powers like the US, the UK and France can show their human face, but there is no duty to act in line of this Human Security Principle.
March 2011 changed everything. On March 19 the United Nations Security Council approved resolution 1973 and authorized the use of “all necessary measures to… protect civilians”.The resolution passed with 10 in favor, 0 against and 5 abstains. Before March 2011, no mission had been authorised by the UN Security Council that so explicitly cited the new principle.
Victims and Perpetrators
Not only does human security break with the former distinction of the secure north versus the insecure south, it also refuses to rigidly judge in terms of perpetrators and victims. In a globalized society also the rich and powerful may become victims. Similarly the poor may turn into perpetrators.
In 1994 and 1995, in Rwanda and Srebrenica, it was mainly the poor and vulnerable, who were massacred. But the 2001 attacks on New York business centre WTC and the 2004 tsunami in Asia, violently proved this broader analysis of the human security concept.
Suddenly not only the persecuted and detained leader of the Myanmar opposition or the HIV infected Zambian appeared under threat. Also the successful American business man who unwittingly entered an – Afghan made – flying bomb on 11 September 2001 suddenly became part of the World Risk Society. Not only the poor Thai fisherman on his way to his small vessel, but also the wealthy Swedish tourist lounging in this beach chair after a rich Christmas breakfast, drowned in an immense wall of water in 2004.
Where the human development concept finds its roots in global empathy for the poor regions of the world, the human security concept is based on the realization that – in a global society like ours – one’s security depends increasingly on the security of the other. He who expects to find security in Oslo or Taipei must also ensure it in Tbilisi or Zimbabwe. Global security is only as strong as its weakest link. Human security intertwines the fate of the Kinshasa slum dweller with that of an Amsterdam millionaire.
“Insecurity can no longer be contained – violence has a tendency to cross borders,” writes Mary Kaldor. “Not in the form of attacks by foreign regimes but through terrorism, organized crime or extreme ideologies.” “Human Security is not a problem confined only to the developing world,” agree Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy. “And the North does not have all the ‘solutions’ for it through interventions, financial assistance or responsibility to protect. The concept easily extends itself to Western societies threatened as they are by urban violence, job insecurities, epidemics, privatization of social delivery, militarization of societies, etc. The challenge of studying the scope of human security issues in Western societies is, perhaps, more than before and more than in other areas of the world, an imperative.”
If new cosmopolitanism is characterized by two phenomena – the concern for the self and the concern for the other – human security as a concept that at present correlates strongest with new cosmopolitanism. “Human Security concerns transcend the traditional statist confines of national security and tend to focus on elimination or prevention of the causes of threats to human security.” Moreover, where “state security” had been exclusive since the 17th century, mainly focusing on the own society, human security is inclusive and universal. “Basically, it is the cosmopolitan alternative.”
Development and security are coming together
In 1994 it was possible for Mahbub ul Haq, architect of the Human Development Index, to state: “The human development paradigm is the most holistic development model that exists today. It embraces every development issue, including economic growth, social investment, people’s empowerment, provision of basic needs and social safety nets, political and cultural freedoms and all other aspects of people’s lives. It is neither narrowly technocratic nor overly philosophical. It is a practical reflection of life itself.”
Ul Haq wrote down his words in 1994, in the rather optimistic era after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although prophecies of doom like Robert Kaplan’s were already lining the shelves of the bookstores and the genocidaires of Rwanda started killing nearly a million people, we were still ignorant of the mass murders of Srebrenica, the bloodshed in Congo and Darfur, the attacks on New York, Madrid and London and the most recent Iraq and Afghan wars.
All these conflicts clearly proved that the human development concept was showing an obvious security void. It simply underexposed crime, terrorism, war, political violence and instability. Public opinion seems to support this feeling. Public opinion polling using the Eurobarometer shows that, when Europeans are asked to mention the three most urgent measures national governments should implement to reach the Millennium Goals, 20 to 49% of all Europeans mention measures already covered by the MDGs and 65% supports the measure “Reduce the possibility of armed conflict and war.”
Seventeen years after 1994 this security void in human development has reached the entire scope of the discourse. In current discussions on the future of the Millennium Development Goals (to be realized in 2015) human security aspects are a given fact.
This focus on security has not exclusively been initiated by the impacting conflicts of the past seventeen years. For instance, the Voices of the Poor project of the World Bank showed without a shadow of a doubt that the poor are generally more worried about their current insecurity than about their structural poverty. Also, more data became available on the intrinsic link between extreme poverty and violent conflict. “The poorer the household is at thestart of the conflict, the higher is the probability of the household participating and supporting an armed group. The higherthe risk of violence, the higher is the probability of the householdparticipating and supporting armed groups. The interaction betweenthese two variables varies with the conflict itself and is definedby the direct and indirect effects of conflict-induced violenceon the economic behaviour and decisions of households in combatareas.”
In other words, human security was already merging with human development. And now human development in its turn is fusing with human security. Moreover, human security can no longer be ignored in the debate on the post 2015 format of the Millennium Development Goals. “If the eradication of absolute poverty remains the centerpiece, many of the present areas would remain relevant, but issues such as empowerment, rights, security/fragile situations, vulnerability, human security and access to infrastructure services, would need to be debated,” is the opinion of Richard Manning, the influential former chairman of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
In the same way the human security concept drafted by Mahbub ul Haq included four human development aspects – viz.Economic security, Food security, Health security and Environmental security – potential post 2015 Millennium Development Goals will no doubt include aspects that are so far mainly characteristic of human security – viz. Personal security, Community security and Political security. Human security strategists acknowledged as early as 1994 that development is a prerequisite for a safe society; human development strategists now realize that development will never exist without a sufficient degree ofsecurity.
Meanwhile new cosmopolitanism continues to develop, albeit in terms of human development and human security, for now. On May 30, 2011, while I am finishing this paper, dozens of NATO aircraft are bombing Libyan forces serving dictator Moammar Ghadaffi. The Colonel is still in control of the capital and the west of the country while the east is in the hand of rebels. But his regime is faltering. According to Reuters, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen states “our operation in Libya is achieving its objectives … We have seriously degraded Gaddafi’s ability to kill his own people. … Gaddafi’s reign of terror is coming to an end.”
Irrespective of the ultimate results of the NATO intervention in Libya, it represents the power of both human development and human security. Both are cosmopolitan grand narratives which entirely support the concept of kosmou politês. The fact that the human development concept did materialize through the Millennium Development Goals and human security seems to find its practical realization in Libya means that the concept contains a lot of per formative power. It’s obvious that Rwanda and Srebrenica changed our view on responsibility. Since 1994 the need to protect civilians is an overwhelming moral imperative.
Moral imperatives alone will not change the world. The international community is much more hesitant towards Syria where president Bashar al-Assad at the moment is murdering hundreds of civilians who raise their voices against his regime. The reasons behind this hesitation are obvious. Syria isn’t as easy as Libya. The challenges the world faces when attacking Al-Assad are beyond comparison. “Colonel Ghadaffi provided an all-but-unique test. Regional leaders loathed him and readily dumped him. The Arab League’s support for the intervention stopped Russia and China wielding their vetoes. And the concentration of the rebels in the east, combined with flat desert terrain, at first made the regime’s forces easy bombing targets. (…) The stars were well and truly aligned in the Libya case. All the criteria were satisfied.”
Human development and human security; both are concepts that would not have happened without the rise of new cosmopolitanism in the eighties and nineties of the last century. In the end the cosmopolitan condition is not about human development or human security; it is not even about the umbrella term of human dignity. In the end it is all about human responsibility.
 Obviously, this view does not go unchallenged. Martha Nussbaum painfully points out that Kant is referring to a very specific member of the human race: the intelligent, active, male citizen. Women, the handicapped, and ‘non human animals’ do not enter Kant’s definition. This, however, did not stop John Rawls from building the most influential defence of justice in the 20th century entirely on Kant’s views. Nussbaum, Martha (2006), Grensgebieden van het Recht. Over sociale rechtvaardigheid, Amsterdam, p. 57.
 Only recently fiercely defended by Kwame Anthony Appiah, commuting between his Ghanese place of birth Kumasi and global Princeton. Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2006), Cosmopolitanism. Ethics in a World of Stranger, London.
 Fine, Robert (2007), Cosmopolitanism, London, Routledge, p. 15.
 According to Alain Finkielkraut. Finkielkraut, Alain and Peter Sloterdijk (2005), De hartslag van de wereld, Nijmegen, p. 37.
 Beck, Ulrich (2007), The Cosmopolitan Vision, Cambridge, Introduction.
 The world can no longer do without global morality, states ethicist Peter Singer. In earlier days morality could hide in the extensive family, the village or the region; today the world is a global village. Therefore, our morality has to be a global morality. ‘We must develop an ethical basis on which to build a communal world in the next century.’
Singer, Peter (2002), One World: Ethics and Globalization, New Haven.
 Sen, Amartya (2006), Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, New Dehli.
 Derrida, Jacques (2001), On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness (Thinking in Action), London and New York, Routledge.
 Habermas, Jürgen (2001), The Postnational Constellation, Cambridge MIT Press.
 Sen, Amartya (1999), Development as freedom, Oxford.
 Nussbaum, Martha C. and Amartya Sen (eds.) (1993), The Quality of Life, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
 Human Development Report 2003, Millennium Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty, New York.
 Hulme, David (2007), The Making of the Millennium Development Goals: Human Development Meets Results-Based Management in an Imperfect World, Brooks World Poverty Institute BWPI Working Paper, 16 December.
 Human Development Report 1998, Chapter 1. The state of human development, New York, p. 37.
 Although in Europe the term Millennium Development Goals is known to only 18 per cent of the population. Only four per cent know exactly what they are. Ergo, 82 per cent of all Europeans have no notion of the MDGs. When asked, however, most Europeans do fully support the goals. The European Commission, Europeans and Development Aid, Report, June 2007.
 Human Development Report 1994, New Dimensions in Human Security
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1994/ (Accessed May 30 2011).
 It is this – probably most widely supported – model of Human Security that will be elaborated on in this paper. For a clear overview of other definitions, go to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security (Accessed May 30 2011).
 World Bank, Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? Washington, 2000.
 ‘A humane world where people can live in security and dignity, free from poverty and despair, is still a dream for many and should be enjoyed by all.’ Human Security Network 1999, A Perspective on Human Security. Chairman’s Summary 1st Ministerial Meeting of the Human Security Network, Lysøen, Norway, May 20.
<http://www.humansecuritynetwork.org/menu-e.php> (Accessed on 12 August 2008).
 Human Development Report 1994, New Dimensions in Human Security, pp. 23 -24.
 Ul Haq, Mahbub (1995), Reflections on Human Development, Oxford, p.116.
 Lloyd Axworthy talks to Canada World View.
www.paho.org/english/dd/pin/Jerry_Spiegel.ppt (Accessed on 14 August 2008).
 Kaplan, Robert (1994), ‘The Coming Anarchy’, The Atlantic Monthly, February.
www.theatlantic.com/doc/199402/anarchy/2 (Accessed 20 August 2008).
 Caplan, Gerald. (2010). An Interdisciplinary Examination of Genocide. In: PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security. Volume XXV
 Ogata, Sadako. Commission on Human Security (2003). Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People. New York
 The Economist (2011) Responsibility to protect. The lessons of Libya. May 21st. Pag 65,66
 ‘Security threats emerge as a direct consequence of dysfunctional regimes in their multiple, though overlapping, sub-systemic dimensions. The reproduction and expansion of mutual vulnerabilities (and insecurity), at both the micro and macro levels, expresses itself through closely related and interconnected thrusts. The same is the case with its opposite — security.’
Nef, Jorge (1999). Human Security and Mutual Vulnerability. The Global Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment (2nd edition), Canada.
Available on the internet: www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9383-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html (Accessed 30 May 2011).
 Kaldor, Mary (2007), Human Security, p. 196.
 Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou and Anuradha M. Chenoy (2007), Human Security. Concepts and Implications, New York, p. 243.
 Hayden, Patrick (2005), Cosmopolitan Global Politics. The pursuit of a humane world order, Burlington, p. 72.
 Johnson, Alan (2007), New Wars and Human Security: An Interview with Mary Kaldor, London.www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d11Kaldor.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2011)
 Ul Haq, Mahbub (1995), ‘The Human Development Paradigm’, in Reflections on Human Development, Oxford University Press, p. 23.
 The European Commission 2005, Attitudes towards Development Aid 2004, February, p. 22.
 Justino, Patricia (2009), ‘Poverty and Violent Conflict: A Micro-Level Perspective on the Causes and Duration of Warfare’,Journal of Peace Research, 46, 3, pp. 315-333.
 Manning, Richard (2009), ‘Using Indicators to Encourage Development? Lessons from the Millennium Development Goals’,DIIS Report 2009:01, February, p. 67.
 Ball, Nicole (2001), Report of a conference organized by the Programme for Strategic and International Studies, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, March 8-9.
 Graff, Peter. (2011) Officers disown Gaddafi as peace bid stalls. Reuters, 30 May.
 The Economist (2011) Responsibility to protect. The lessons of Libya. May 21st. P. 65, 66