Human Lives Human Rights: In the context of the ongoing Human Rights Crisis in Myanmar, the concept of human security must be understood as both a response to violence and a broader framework addressing fundamental freedoms, socioeconomic needs, and the preservation of human dignity.
Introduction
Today, human rights violations and crimes against humanity are recognized as grave breaches of international peace and security. In response to the violation of human rights, various tools and solutions have been developed, including the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and others. These mechanisms have been utilized in numerous cases of human rights violations and crimes against humanity, such as in Rwanda, Somalia, the Balkans, Kosovo, and Libya. Despite these efforts, however, in the case of the crisis facing Myanmar’s Muslim population, where the situation of human rights violations has been more severe and prolonged than previous cases, the international community has not witnessed any practical action from the Security Council. This is despite reports from the Secretary-General and the Human Rights Council, as well as other subsidiary organs of the United Nations.
The violation of international peace and security is a ubiquitous phenomenon of the international environment, which was accorded special importance in the form of the United Nations Charter after World War II. Until the end of the Cold War era, the concept of violation of international peace and security was defined and categorized as a defense-security concept. However, with the end of World War II, this concept underwent a significant shift in meaning, and an expanded interpretation was presented. The concept of violation of international peace and security is no longer confined solely to issues related to national security or defense; rather, it encompasses a broader range of concerns, including human rights, humanitarian law, and sustainable development.
One of the most significant violations of international peace and security in the post-Cold War era is human rights violations, which take various forms, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These violations fall within the purview of the United Nations and its member states, who have a responsibility to address them.
In the 1990s, various manifestations of human rights violations emerged around the world, prompting the Security Council to reevaluate its role in maintaining international peace and security. The Council intervened in several cases, including the Kurdistan and southern Iraq crises in 1991, which led to the establishment of a no-fly zone in these areas.
The Security Council also intervened in other cases, such as Somalia, the Balkans, and Kosovo, during the 1990s. However, with the dawn of the new century and the doctrine of humanitarian intervention being deemed insufficient by then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the organization began to reexamine and transform this doctrine. In 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine was adopted by the UN Summit, marking a significant turning point in humanitarian intervention and expanding the role and function of the Security Council and the UN. In 2011, following the severe repression of the Libyan people by Muammar Gaddafi’s regime and the implementation of R2P principles, the ground was laid for Security Council intervention and the doctrine was put to the test for the first time.
In this context, there is a legal and normative framework that enables the United Nations to intervene in such cases, as well as a precedent of practice and procedure based on the roles of the UN and other international legal institutions. This research aims to examine the legal grounds for humanitarian intervention in cases of human rights violations, one of the most egregious and bloodiest in the post-Cold War era, and to assess the performance of the aforementioned international institutions.
International peace and security, as well as human rights violations in their various forms, have always been critical concerns. However, since the end of the Cold War, these two concepts have become increasingly intertwined. As a result, human rights violations have been viewed as a violation of international peace and security, underscoring the significant importance of human rights. What adds to the significance of this research is that it focuses on one of the most devastating cases of human rights violations in modern history: the case of human rights abuses against Muslims in Myanmar.
A crucial point in this regard is that on one hand, the human tragedies in Myanmar are among the most recent incidents of human rights violations, starkly visible to the world community and public opinion. On the other hand, these incidents are a deliberate and systematic attack against Myanmar’s Muslims. Therefore, there is a clear and pressing need for a purposeful and scientific investigation into how these events unfolded against Myanmar’s Muslims and the role of international institutions in this regard.
Theoretical framework
A. The Concept of Human Security
In the years leading up to the end of the Cold War, efforts were made to redefine and broaden the concept of security. The term “human security” emerged in the mid-1990s through policy statements and resolutions issued by the United Nations, particularly in a 1994 report by the United Nations Development Program. According to this report, human security is defined as a situation where individuals are free from constraints and psychological pressures that hinder human development. The concept of human security encompasses two main aspects: first, safety and health from chronic and long-term threats such as hunger, disease, and oppression; and second, being safe from sudden disruptions to daily life patterns.
Another approach to human security focuses on freedom from need. Pedersen defines human security as a comprehensive set of knowledge, technology, institutions, and activities that support, defend, and protect various aspects of human life, as well as processes that promote collective peace and progress to increase human freedom.
Some scholars argue that human security goes beyond freedom from need and includes other freedoms and values. For example, Thakur and his colleagues at the United Nations University in Tokyo suggest that human security is about protecting people from serious threats to their lives, regardless of whether these threats arise from human activities or natural disasters. Human security is centered on people, focusing on individual and social group needs.
This concept is “security-oriented,” emphasizing fear, danger, and threat. Thakur attempts to limit the scope of human security by highlighting situations and conditions that threaten or support life, and distinguishing those that have not reached a critical state from the broader agenda of development.
A more expansive definition of human security is provided by Al-Khair, who was a member of the Human Security Commission in 2003. He argues that the goal of human security is to preserve the essential core of life for all human beings in a way that achieves human freedoms and satisfaction.
According to the explicit language of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all individuals have the right to life, liberty, and personal security, it is clear that security is a universal and general concept that benefits all human beings. On the other hand, it is essential to note that personal security is an inherent right of every individual, akin to the right to life. It is not a privilege granted by governments or other legal entities, but rather a gift from God that every person enjoys from the moment of birth to the moment of death.
In this sense, security is not something that can be taken away or bestowed upon an individual by external authorities, but rather it is a fundamental aspect of human dignity and existence.
B. Extended School of Human Security Theory
The extended school of human security theory posits that human security encompasses a broader meaning than simply being concerned about the threat of violence. According to this perspective, human security is not limited to the core concept of freedom from want, as emphasized in the UNDP report. Instead, some scholars argue that human security in underdeveloped conditions goes beyond freedom from want and includes other freedoms and values.
For example, Al-Kair’s definition of human security is an even more expansive one. As a member of the 2003 Human Security Commission, co-chaired by Amartya Sen and Sadako Ogata, he argues that “the purpose of human security is to preserve the essential core of all human life in a way that develops and promotes human freedoms and satisfaction.” Similarly, Thakur defends the concept of expansive structures by stating that “the purpose of human security is to preserve the essential core of life for all human beings in a way that develops and promotes human freedoms and satisfaction.”
Thakur also defends the concept of extended structures, acknowledging that comprehensive and inclusive definitions may lead to a loss of analytical precision. However, he believes that these definitions are valuable and useful because they provide a broader understanding of human security (Kerr, 2008: 608).
