Human Security in Oceania and Ukraine by Warsaw Institute

— SPECIAL REPORT —

2023/11/29

HUMAN SECURITY IN OCEANIA AND UKRAINE JOANNA SIEKIERA, PHD

HUMAN SECURIT Y IN OCEANIA AND UKRAINE

The Human Development Report 1994 drawn up by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) brought to life a new concept of human security. The Report consisted of a thorough analysis of legal norms and societal standards as well as addressed concerns of politicians, civil society groups, and humanitarian workers. A major accomplishment of the Report was the definition of human security involving seven components. Notably, the UN paper abides by all core legal standards and thus is not uncoupled with international law doctrines––it emboldens both written and unwritten laws as adopted by all nations. In 1994 a new breakthrough paradigm of sustainable human development was unveiled. Undoubtedly, a new model of human security refers to all nations of Oceania––most vulnerable to the ravaging effects of climate change including rising sea levels––as well as people of war-torn Ukraine, promoting both a state- and a human-centric approach. Dynamic changes and constant threats, due to either natural or man-made causes, are inevitable in human life and existence. However, living conditions have changed dramatically as never before. Hence, a need emerged for amended laws and policies at all levels––national, regional, and international. The UN Report was referred to as “new dimensions of human security 1” as it addressed a brand new concept of human security related to people rather than nation states that set up the entirety of the legal principles and norms, including human rights. Thus, the UN outfitted politicians, lawmakers, lawyers, lobbyists, and businesspeople with a widely accepted people-centric approach to security and development. Moreover, security was commonly believed to always go hand in hand with force––either military or offensive––and not the social, economic, or educational attainment of nations to ensure their robust existence

worldwide. A new feature in the Report consisted of a universal approach to all human beings as enshrined in national and international legal frameworks since the one-size-fits-all methodology failed considerably after decades of calamitous globalization. These encompass early years of colonization, exploitation of natural resources of developing countries in the twentieth century as well as world wars, and genocide in an extreme-case scenario. Human security has been rooted in a new paradigm of sustainable human development that goes beyond nation states or the natural environment. The term itself gained momentum only after the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro back in 1992 2. Once adequately perceived and implemented, the notion of sustainable human development could be attained through a peaceful dividend, a new model of intergovernmental cooperation, and a network of restructured institutions to guarantee that all states remain committed to sustainable human development. The Report was compiled for the World Summit for Social Development, held in Copenhagen in 1995. The stakes were high: “the Social Summit is to review the progress made by humanity in the last fifty years and construct the new architecture of peace and development for the next fifty years” as the Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, chief author of the Human Development Report Office, remarked. The project was meant to invest in human development, and thus personal and social security, stability, and wellbeing of individuals and communities––as well as to root out a military component from the concept of human security. In addition to fulfilling such a demanding task, politicians and leaders had to handle what was known as a peace dividend to reduce military expenditure. Both the United Nations and the League of Nations, its predeces-

1. UN Human Development Program, Human Development Report 1994, New Dimensions of Human Security: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-1994 2. UN, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992: https://www.un.org/en/conferences/ environment/rio1992

Special Report

www.warsawinstitute.org

HUMAN SECURIT Y IN OCEANIA AND UKRAINE

UN, MICHOS-TZOVARAS

sor, showed that the mandate for promoting peace globally is not fulfilled properly while many opportunities for peaceful intervention are missed. Any peaceful resolution could either provide a local population with an ad hoc relief scheme or a fair chance of steady development and long-lasting peace, notably in underdeveloped and poor countries. The very concept of human security, albeit new to legislation, has been eagerly adopted by all states across the globe and regardless of their economic posture. Finally, a model of development assistance was altered as it no longer consists of sending aid to build societal resilience––in a nutshell, people are given a fishing pole, and not a fish, albeit somehow inconsistently. Human security is a universal right for all––the poor and the rich. Nonetheless, threats to human security could vary in intensity in many places across the globe. Island nations in the Pacific are exposed to societal, economic, and environmental threats while just being victims of a climate-related sea level rise 3. All elements of human security

are intertwined. Whenever a threat emerges to human security––in some submerged Pacific islands or war-ravaged Ukraine––perhaps all states, including those geographically and culturally remote, scramble to help either directly or indirectly––they host refugees or take legal action to tackle climate change or stop warfare. The 1994 UNDP Report addressed seven elements of human security: 1. Economic security 2. Food security 3. Health security 4. Environmental security 5. Personal security 6. Community security 7. Political security

3. J. Siekiera, Legal consequences of ocean change in the South Pacific – outline of the problem, „Lex Portus” Vol. 5, No. 7-20, 2019.

www.warsawinstitute.org

Special Report

HUMAN SECURIT Y IN OCEANIA AND UKRAINE

SEVEN CATEGORIES OF HUMAN SECURITY ACCORDING TO THE UNDP REPORT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. TRILATERAL RESEARCH: HTTPS://WWW.TRILATERALRESEARCH.COM/WHY-IS-HUMAN-SECURITY-IMPORTANT/

Once mapped out, all pillars of human security develop a better understanding of all threats and risks to Oceania nations amid a sea level rise or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including how ruinous these could be for economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security. Consequently, human is put at the center of security thinking in stark contrast to the Westphalian state system that has prevailed until now, where, however, non-state actors have gained prominence for making decisions. That is important as many entities in Oceania are not sovereign states under international law, but “just” a country, territory, or an associated state 4. Their legal status translates into further action at the international level, including their capability to ensure community security. One example of that is the Russia-Ukraine war where a powerful and resources-rich empire has clashed with a small and relatively young state still seeking allies. Climate change and internal displacement are both among the greatest challenges to human security of our time. Human mobility, either voluntary or forced in both Oceania and Ukraine,

presents decision-makers with an array of legal, societal, economic, and logistical dilemmas for states that shoulder responsibility for their nations as well as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Legally speaking, state and IGOs remain primary and secondary sources of law, respectively, and their core responsibility is to maintain peace and stability. In addition to the policies introduced by the UN and its agencies, the governments in the Pacific have shown commitment to interdisciplinary research into the risks climate change poses to individuals and communities. First of all, Oceania nations have put in place regional and national policies on internal displacement amid rising sea and ocean levels or natural disasters 5. They could in the long run prove useful for other low-lying states and territories in the Indian Ocean or the Caribbean Sea that face an array of threats to human security. As an ancient Latin dictum goes, primum non nocere (“first, do no harm”), and in line with that phrase, removing all barriers in state territory or their exclusive economic zones

4. J. Siekiera, International law status of the Pacific states, in: J. Kawa-Marszałek, Aspects of contemporary Asia. Politics, law, media, ed. Adam Marszałek, Toruń 2015. 5. There is no such legal definition at the international level.

Special Report

www.warsawinstitute.org

HUMAN SECURIT Y IN OCEANIA AND UKRAINE

MSTYSLAV CHERNOV, AP

is critical in combatting the disastrous effects of climate change and the rising water level. Southern Pacific states must turn full attention, both legally and commonly, to equal rights of all community members who vary according to age, gender, ethnicity, education, disabilities, and place of residence, which make them vulnerable to threats to a different extent. What should be put at the center is how state and non-state actors interpret existing legal provisions, at the regional and national level, once confronted with the devastating effects of sea level rise that jeopardize human security. In Ukraine, de iure at war since February 2022 and de facto since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in February-March 2014, personal security does not involve only Ukrainian nationals. When halting a crucial Black Sea grain deal, Russia in fact put global food and health security at risk. In a highly correlated world we now all live in, a threat to one community triggers another one–– even to a community located hundreds of kilometers away. The Human Development Report was drawn up thirty years ago. The question is why a whole array of global debates and decision-making www.warsawinstitute.org

processes deliver an inconsistent solution to all emerging human insecurities. Some researchers hint at improper risk assessment carried out by individuals (political leaders and heads of state) and organizations. Instead, they privilege a state-centric approach––as the focus is placed on what a state could win or lose––while the concept of human security is somewhat downplayed. A more realistic, albeit ruthless political response is that states have always put their interests above those of other states––and people. However, history has shown that the concept of human-centric security has indeed made tremendous progress in reducing inequalities and inconsistencies at political, legal, and economic level. Mahbub ul Haq, a former Finance Minister of Pakistan, argued that thirty years later, the implication of people-centered security was that a substantially new manner of thinking emerged to shift a limited traditional and thus harmful definition of security. And thus such a manner of thinking has changed. How the international community needs to take human-centric action to develop and implement relief schemes for communities damaged by wars, natural disasters, or the devastating effects of climate change.

Special Report

HUMAN SECURIT Y IN OCEANIA AND UKRAINE

author: Joanna Siekiera, PhD Joanna Siekiera is an international lawyer with a PhD in public policy studies. She works as a legal advisor and lecturer in many military institutions: NATO, the US Marines, the armed forces of Finland and Turkey, among others. She completed a post-doctorate at the University of Bergen in Norway and a PhD at the University of Victoria in New Zealand. She is the author of 100 scientific publications in several languages, 40 legal opinions for the Polish Ministry of Justice and the book “Regional Policy in the South Pacific,” and the editor of 7 monographs on international law, international relations and security.

Special Report

www.warsawinstitute.org

Warsaw Institute Wilcza St. 9, 00-538 Warsaw, Poland +48 22 417 63 15 office@warsawinstitute.org

THE TASK IS FINANCED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FREEDOM - CENTER FOR CIVIL SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS FOR 2018-2030, PRIORITY 4. INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC THINK TANKS, EDITION 2022.