Theme Presentation

1. Introduction

Although the two concepts are basically distinct as they belong to different academic fields, with human security being part of the international relations area and positive liberty belonging to normative political theory, there are many common characteristics which lie at the heart of each concept and they can be considered for a large degree interrelated.

This presentation is structured in the following manner: in the first part we briefly discuss the literature regarding human security, starting from the its general definitions and continuing with its seven components as identified in the Human Development Report of 1994. In the second part we present the main elements involved in the definition of positive liberty, starting from Berlin’s introduction of the term and moving forward to Sen’s incorporation of the concept into his capability approach. In the third part we argue that a full comprehension of human security can only be achieved by starting from the theoretical framework provided by positive liberty, thereby bridging the two concepts. In this process we also describe some of the main features of these concepts which will provide the reader with a better understanding of their implications.

2. Human Security

Generally speaking, human security can be defined as a theoretical approach to the concept of security which has as its main objective the safeguarding of the vital core of human lives from critical pervasive threats in a way that is consistent with long-term human fulfillment (Alkire, 2003, p.2). Although the term “human security” precedes it, modern interpretations of the concept begin with the 1994 Human Development Report. According to the Report, “human security” can be explored from two main dimensions: first of all, it means safety from chronic threats (e.g. hunger, disease or repression, etc.) and secondly it means protection from sudden disruptions in the pattern of daily lives(link) .

Both dimensions are essential parts of human security, however we can easily observe that it is the second part, the socio-economical aspect of the concept, which distinguishes it from traditional security approaches. However, as the Human Development Report coherently points out there is a fundamental difference between human security and human development, the latter referring to the possibility of expanding the current set of choices for individuals while the former refers to the capacity to ensure that the current set of choices is stable and protected. In a similar vein, human security can also be regarded as being as a concept founded both on “freedom from fear” as much as on “ freedom from want”(link) . Another definition, much more rigid, which has gain prominent significance in the literature of the field is given by King and Murray who argue that human security can be assimilated to “the number of years of future life spent outside a state of ‘generalized poverty(link) ’ “ (King and Murray, 2002, p.585).

At its core, human security is people-centered. It argues that the security of individuals can be achieved only when “policies, programs and projects are designed, implemented and evaluated from the perspective of people and with their participation” (Tadjbakhsh, 2007, p.13). In the mean time however it also requires an inter-sectorial approach, in the sense that the relation between threats is both explored an dealt with simultaneously and negative externalities are identified and limited (Tadjbakhsh, 2007, pp.13-14).

Human security can better be understood once it is broken down into its main components, i.e. the directions where individuals can feel threatened by a lack of access. As identified in the Human Development Report, there are seven main components: 1. Economic Security, meaning that all individuals must have access to an assured basic income, whether it is the result of productive work or in the last resort from a publicly financed income redistribution scheme, 2. Food Security, meaning that individuals have both physical and economic access to basic food sources, 3. Health Security, meaning that individuals have access to basic medical facilities and medical services at all times, 4. Environmental Security, meaning that individuals are not exposed to dangerous living conditions caused by pollution, toxic wastes, etc., 5. Personal Security, meaning the absence of threats regarding physical violence from the state, other states or other individuals, 6. Community Security, meaning that the groups to which individuals belong are not discriminated against and are protected through special institutional arrangements when they represent minorities within the socio-cultural structure and 7.Political Security, meaning that individuals are guaranteed the respect for basic human rights by the state and in particular respect for political rights(link) .

3. Positive liberty

The concept of positive liberty is introduced by Berlin (1969) to counter the one-dimensional perspective of the mainstream literature, deriving from Locke’s contractualism (1689) and Mill’s harm principle (1859), which generally presented liberty as the absence of external obstruction and interferences (Miroiu, 2009, p.3). In Berlin’s view, who terms it “negative liberty” this is only one face of what is in fact a dualist concept. While negative liberty is primarily concerned with the exogenous factors which inhibit the ability of an individual to behave in a certain way and is decidedly oriented toward institutional constraints placed upon the individuals of a society, positive liberty is by contrast primarily concerned with the ability of individuals to “be their own masters” (Berlin, 1969, p.160) or more elegantly put “to be the instrument of their own acts of will” (Berlin, 1969, p.161). Positive liberty is therefore defined as the “freedom to” in opposition to negative liberty which is defined as the “freedom for”. It is the freedom to act in a way which does not take into account only external constraints, but also internal constraints which can inhibit the individual from making conscious, rational choices.

Conjecturally this is the first and most popular interpretation of the concept of positive liberty, however the issue, even in the form presented by Berlin is much more complex. For Berlin positive liberty does not only mean that the individual has to deal with internal constraints besides external ones(link) but that as this type of freedom is concerned with the ability “to do” it is also inextricably linked to the question of the legitimacy of government (Berlin, 1969) and the collective control over the common life (Taylor, 1997). Miroiu in fact identifies three conceptions of positive liberty formulated by Berlin under the umbrella of the same term: 1. the capacity of an individual to act in certain ways according to his own will, 2. the capacity of an individual to rationally direct his life in accordance with his rational(link) desires and aspirations and 3. collective auto-determination where each individual has a role in controlling the overall political environment.

At first glance the three conceptions of positive liberty can be seen as relatively distinct although at a much closer inspection we can observe that for the greatest part they are interconnected. The notion of positive liberty is therefore much more comprehensive than its negative face as it connects political will to individual will, including the intrinsic values and constraints of an individual which shape and direct his decisional process.

Although it has been criticised from several directions, the most important one being that of MacCallum who argues that liberty always involves agents, actions and coercions and the distinction between positive and negative liberty isn’t anything more than the accentuation of a certain element of the triadic equation in detriment to another one (MacCallum, 1967, pp.312-334).
Although it has been criticized and adapted in the contemporary period, positive liberty is still critically important as it represents one the first successful attempts to expand the concept of liberty beyond the traditional one-dimensional scheme presented up to that time.

Positive liberty, the ability “to do” is particularly important in Sen’s capabilities approach which, inter alia, constitutes the theoretical framework on which the Human Development Index is developed. Sen’s philosophical endeavour on this issue does not start however from positive liberty but from the problem of equality, specifically with the question: what exactly is the value which should be distributed equally among individuals of a society in order for the respective society to be considered a just arrangement? (Sen, 1992). In Sen’s view the question is central to normative political theory and has been answered in various fashions throughout academic spectrum, but in the large majority of cases the theories formulated are too rigid and remain tributary to archaic conceptions of individual liberty.

The lack of concern to a certain conception of positive liberty, i.e. the capacity of a person “to do” certain things and the direct impact which goods have on the capacities of human beings (Sen, 1979, pp.217-218) undermines according to Sen the moral framework of utilitarianism, welfarism as well as the Rawlsian conception of equality. However, Sen does not advocate the maximization of positive liberty either, his capabilities being connected to substantive freedom, a concept which incorporates elements from both negative and positive liberty (Sen, 1988). In spite of not being unilaterally directed towards this conception, Sen’s capability approach is particularly important for positive liberty as it is effectively built in opposition to previous theories which severely discounted positive liberty from their methodological framework. 

4. Linking Human Security and Positive Liberty

Both human security and positive liberty are extremely important concepts. The first one represents a new way of conceptualizing security, approaching individual requirements from a multidimensional perspective, rather that just focusing on stat-related arrangements. The second one represents the first break between the classical notion of liberty, seen as the absence of externally imposed constraints and a modern one, designed to ensure genuine individual freedom by ensuring that individuals actually have the real capacity to do certain actions, not only the formal capacity to do them. Here lies the subtle yet visible connection between the two concepts. Both of them represent modern alternatives to fundamental philosophical concepts important to every human being (even if the distinction positive/negative liberty itself has been replaced by newer perspectives) and both of them try to expand the rigid and narrow definitions of these concepts.

In fact, the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen on the basis of substantive freedom, a concept which in its turn takes some theoretical foundations from positive liberty, can be subtlety linked to human security in the sense that each basic capability of an individual can only be assured through the safeguarding of a component (or a combination of components) of human security.

These concepts are therefore significant both to the development and protection of individuals worldwide. This is the reason why BISMUN 2012 has chosen “Human Security and Positive Liberty” as the 2012 edition theme. The two concepts are both tied together as one of them is predicated on the other and they have various distinctions which separate them from previous interpretations of the concepts, thereby making them modern, profound and all-encompassing perspectives of issues fundamental to every individual.