A HUMAN SECURITY APPROACH TO BORDER STUDIES
Introduction
In the study of International Relations (IR), the issue of state borders is often a very crucial
theme of study, because it is related to territorial issues and state sovereignty. Therefore, the
majority of research on borders is always dominated by the traditional security approach with
the state as the central actor. Therefore, it is not uncommon for issues that often arise when
discussing state borders to be related to militarization and conflict (Atzili, 2012; Bechev &
Nicolaidis, 2010; Coyle, 2018), including territorial demarcation and its accompanying
physical aspects (Minghi, 1963; Prescott & Triggs, 2008).
Traditionally, IR studies have regarded borders as inseparable from the state as the primary
unit of analysis. Borders are regarded as given and inviolable. Moreover, there is a view that
borders are inseparable from state sovereignty, so the security dimension will be highly
emphasized and the consequence is the neglect of other social dimensions contained therein
(Agnew, 1994; Paasi, 2005). Thus, the study of state borders still leaves a lot of niches to be
explored in more depth, especially with regard to the borders and human well-being.
In contrast to the majority of existing border studies, this paper examines state borders
using a human security approach that places the individual as the referent object. This is
because the paradigm shift trend that has occurred since a few decades ago has opened a
debate on the human aspects that are often overlooked when faced with traditional approaches
that are more concerned with the physical dimensions of borders and the security of a country.
Human security itself is a variant of international development studies that emphasizes
holistic human well-being and does not only focus on the statistical figures of development
commonly used to measure development success (Ackleson, 2005; Ajdari & Asgharpour,
2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017; Shibuya, 2016). By integrating the various
literatures developed in IR studies on human security, the study of borders has implications
for a richer and more responsive study of the human condition and social communities that
live and depend on border areas or on the issues that accompany borders. The above narrative
of thinking emphasizes that this paper focuses on the study of the human security approach in
the state border.
Discussion
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
Border Studies In International Relations
The study of IR has become very complex and rich in new studies along with the
development of world politics. Today, IR scholars commonly recognize the division of issues
based on their periodization, namely traditional and non-traditional issues, where the term
traditional issues refers to phenomena that used to dominate this field of study such as
discussions about wars between sovereign states, military arms races, regional security
alliances, to the balance of power between major countries in international politics.
Meanwhile, the term non-traditional issues refers to a very broad range of issues that fall
outside the first grouping of terms. Non-traditional issues range widely from economic issues
such as growth, prosperity, import-export, regional trade cooperation, global trade regimes,
and so on. Then there are social issues such as human rights, preservation of human cultural
heritage, education, and so on. In the field of the environment, attention is drawn to issues of
global warming, environmental pollution, the sustainability of wild and endemic animals, and
the diversity of flora and fauna in the ecosystem.
The development of non-traditional issues, as explained earlier, implies a significant
consequence in the study of IR science, namely the shift in the central position of the state
which no longer dominates the focus of IR scientists both as a subject and object of research.
The shift in focus from the state, making previous entities less noticed and at the margins of
the discourse of IR science, is now starting to be spelled out with the state in relation to IR
actors. Marginal actors that have emerged into the midst of current IR scientific discourse can
be seen as multinational corporations (MNCs), international non-governmental organizations
(INGOs), local governments, indigenous communities, to individuals who have great
influence in global politics.
The development of issues and actors in IR studies certainly makes this field of science
complex. Complexity is brought not only from the addition of new issues and actors in the HI
discourse, but also in the position of old issues that must be adjusted and examined with
analytical tools and perspectives that also develop along with the transformations that occur in
social life. The examination of traditional issues using contemporary approaches often results
in new and different perspectives from the usual approaches. However, it must be recognized
that not all fields of study in IR science can 'accept' this change in perspective. Some fields
are still thick with traditional elements that are difficult to eliminate in the discussion. One of
them is the field of state border studies, or more commonly known as borderlands clear
international borders.
International borders are an important aspect of the concept of the state produced by the
1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as they define the territory where authority is exercised and the
boundaries where authority ends. In addition, borders are also an important aspect where state
sovereignty intersects with the sovereignty of other states. This phenomenon is commonplace
in the modern world, where the Westphalian concept of nation-state has proliferated across
the globe and there is hardly any territory that is not under the authority of a nation-state.
One of the most interesting debates in IR discourse is the debate on the impact of
globalization on international borders. There are at least two camps in the discourse on
borders in relation to globalization. The first camp is those who are skeptical of the
significance of borders, even going so far as to challenge the authority and relevance of the
Westphalia nation-state concept that gave birth to the concept of borders itself (Castells,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Hammar-lund, 2005; R. O'Brien, 1992; Ohmae, 1995, 2005). Se-
While for the other camp, borders are still relevant in IR, they argue that until now the
concept of the Westphalian nation-state, like it or not, must be recognized as a concept that
still has a very strong influence on the lives of people and groups (Albert & Brock, 2001;
Anderson, 1996; Clad, 2011; Diener & Hagen, 2010; Goemans, 2006; New-man, 2001; van
Houtum, Kramsch, & Zierhofer, 2005).
In addition to the great debate on the impact of globalization on borders there are also other
scholarly writings centered on the theme of borders related to sovereignty (Jones et al., 2017;
Shneiderman, 2013), the link between borders and international cooperation (Aker et al.,
2014; Castanho et al., 2017; Hayakawa, 2017; Medeiros, 2017), border construction in both
physical and normative dimensions such as public perception.
Human Security: Expanding The Reference Objects Of Security Studies
In the midst of the many academic writings on the theme of borders, it turns out that this
still leaves space where the focus of exploration of studies on the theme of borders can still be
explored more deeply. One of these spaces of exploration is the study of borders from the
perspective of human security. Before further exploring this concept in the context of IR, an
explanation of the concept of security as the basis for the development of security studies
needs to be done first. In IR studies, the concept of security that is often referred to is the
formulation of the concept by Barry Buzan in his book entitled People, State and Fear.
Security is one of the focuses of attention that all parties, both state entities and individuals,
want to achieve. This is what makes the issue and study of security dominant in IR studies. In
its early days, IR studies often focused on studies of a state's national security in international
politics. The application of the concept of security is then dominated by the behavior of the
state in anticipating threats to its national security by using a military approach, this is
strongly influenced by the current world conditions set in the cold war. After the cold war, the
world's security conditions experienced significant changes that had implications for the
trans- formation of issues and actors in international relations, including the conception of
security.
Security studies then underwent a transformation, If at first the concept of security was
intended as a traditional study of militaristic national security, then in its development
security studies also began to include non-traditional issues such as democracy, human rights,
the environment, structural violence, and socio-cultural conflict (Booth, 1991).
The issue of non-traditional security began to emerge in the late 1990s when a group of
experts known as the Copenhagen school such as Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de
Wilde tried to understand the issue include aspects beyond the traditional concerns of security
studies - such as food insecurity, poverty, health, the environment, human trafficking,
terrorism, natural disasters, and so on - as part of security studies (Hadiwinata, 2007). Strictly
speaking, this group of thinkers tried to broaden the object of reference of security issues to
not only discuss state security, but also began to discuss human security.
Human security is a serious concern around the world and the concept is evolving in
security discourse. Unlike the traditional discourse that emphasizes the security of a particular
state, region, or government, the concept of human security focuses on the security of
individuals and communities. In short, the concept of human security always places the
individual as the central object of discourse, analysis and policy (Nishikawa, 2010), which
also includes value principles such as dignity, equality and solidarity.
The notion of human security, however, is subject to various interpretations. Sometimes it
refers to people's safety (e.g. freedom from threats to life such as those caused by armed
conflict), while at other times, people's living conditions (e.g. elimination of poverty and
deprivation) or dignity (e.g. promotion of human values and rights). As an idea, human
security was first introduced in the international arena through the publication of the UNDP
Human Development Report in 1994. Human security is broadly defined as "freedom from
fear and freedom from want" and is characterized as security from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and oppression as well as protection from sudden and dangerous disruptions
in the pattern of daily life-whether at home, at work, or in the community (UNDP, 1994: 23).
The UNDP's individual security-centered approach was further developed with seven
universal and interdependent components, namely; economic, food, health, environmental,
personal, community, and political security (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Human Security: A Response To Changes In International Relations
Historically, the human security approach was an attempt to respond to the need to address
major changes in inter-national relations. The concept of human security evolved at a time of
major shifts in international affairs: the disintegration of the Soviet Union that ended the cold
war left behind the shadow of bipolar politics that had obscured the practice of international
relations for centuries, but paved the way for the recognition of new threats and unresolved
conflicts. At the same time, globalization changed the international order to facilitate the rapid
flow of capital and technology across national borders. New non-state actors are emerging to
play an important role in the international political system, some as threats and some as
bridges between communities and nations. In such a situation, the role of the state begins to
be reduced and continues to transform, traditionally accepted as a contested conception of
power. This shift then requires new thinking that can address issues related to the classic
problems of development and security. Thus, human security theorization is an effort that is
developed in this direction.
The two superpowers at the time of the cold war (the United States and the Soviet Union)
continued to dominate world politics and international relations until a pattern of competition
between the two was established. However, by 1990, the world had changed: no more
communism, no more Soviet Union, no more arms race, no more power rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union. The winds of change had hit the Soviet Union and most
countries in different parts of the world. Everything seemed possible; peace became an
undesirable reality. The concept of human security emerged in this environment. The world
was at a crossroads, and the roadmap for international development was in high demand. In
1994, it was the UNDP that first trans- formed the concept of human security from the
traditional idea of peace. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security, and political security. The concept of human security also incorporates ideas of
economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security,
community security and political security.
In its development, human security has become a buzzword. Even countries such as
Canada and Japan have stated that human security is a guiding principle for their foreign
policies. In an ever-globalizing world, where threats are becoming transnational practices and
states are increasingly losing power, security issues can no longer be studied with only one
dimension of knowledge. Instead, security issues must be conceptualized from various
disciplines by considering several variables and their interactions. Human security is a
concept that unpacks the meaning of 'security' from its traditional concept of protecting the
state from military threats to securing people and communities. To date, human security is not
a single concept. Concepts and definitions of human security come from various circles and
groups such as international organizations, regional institutions, and state actors who discuss
it in various international forums and conferences. The European Union, Canada, Japan,
UNDP, and academics came up with various definitions, ranging from the narrow view of
preventing violence to the comprehensive view that development, human rights, and
traditional security have become the common needs of all human beings on earth. The
conception of human security contributes to the development of security studies. The premise
of the conception of human security focuses on the existence of the individual, but more
broadly it also includes matters relating to values and goals such as the protection of
individual dignity, equality and solidarity.
Starting from this idea, it can be concluded that the concept of human security was
formulated as a form of reaction to the traditional idea of realists (in IR studies) who put
national security as the focus of attention. The traditional concept of security emphasizes the
security of the state from external threats that are militaristic. The concept of human security,
on the other hand, focuses on the security of the individual and his or her protection from a
wide range of threats both of a military and criminal nature as well as the threat of famine and
disease outbreaks.
The traditional paradigm is then tried to be balanced with a new paradigm that comes from
the expansion of referent objects of secu- rity. Human security shifts the referent object of
security from the traditional paradigm of the state to the individual. In addition, the concept
also expands the definition of 'security' from one that focuses only on survival to the
dimension of livability and protection of the dignity of human life. Thus, what has changed
significantly is the way of looking at the source of the threat as well as the object to be
secured. For example, poverty is considered a threat to human security because it threatens
the livability and dignity of human life, although poverty can also be seen as a threat to the
survival of a country because poverty can be something that causes division and threatens the
stability of a country. So, the same threat can be viewed through different lenses.
Another thing that makes human security a concept worthy of being on the international
agenda is the development of global issues that emerged after the Cold War. With the
increasingly connected countries in the world, new sources of threats have emerged and are
cross-border in nature, so that the traditional security paradigm is unable to keep up with
existing developments. These conditions have increasingly made the concept of human
security accepted as an agenda for international actors, not only states, but also INGOs in the
world (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
Humanitarian Security As An Approach In State Border Studies
The concept of human security refers to a shift in the focus of development as well as
traditional security that emphasizes numbers and for-mal statistics. In relation to development,
this concept supports the goal of development as implemented by countries around the world
to improve the lives of their people. However, the development paradigm adopted by many
countries in the world is more likely to reflect the traditional growth- and welfare-oriented
view.
Based on the weaknesses of the growth- and welfare-oriented development strategy, in the
1980s a new development strategy emerged, namely people centered development. There are
two perspectives in this development context, namely: first, production centered development
which places people as instruments or objects of development. In this case, it is more oriented
towards productivity where prosperity is abundant and the 'poor' receive passively. Then
humans are seen as production factors only and ignore other humans. Second, people centered
development (people centered development/human centered development) which emphasizes
the importance of human empowerment, namely the ability of humans to actualize all their
potential as human beings (Korten, 1987; Tjokroaminoto, 1996).
The human-centered development paradigm encompasses a broader dimension than simply
forming professional and skilled human beings who are fit for purpose to contribute to the
development process. Human beings are placed at the core of development. The
implementation of development must come from humans, be carried out by humans, and for
the benefit of humans. Thus, this approach places humans as subjects in the development
process as an effort to solve development problems through empowerment. The logic
underlying this paradigm is balanced human ecology, human resources, and human
development.
The main development is the inexhaustible information of creative initiatives, and the goal
is human development in the sense of opti- mal actualization of human potential. This
paradigm gives a role to individuals, not just as objects but as subjects/actors who determine
goals, control resources and direct the processes that determine their lives. Therefore, this
paradigm gives the highest place to local initiative and diversity, as well as the importance of
independent local communities (Korten, 1987).
In its development, the human development paradigm became a formalized approach and
was adopted at the international level with the release of the UNDP Human Development
Report in 1994. In this document, the concept of human security was first introduced by
Mahbub Ul-Haq, former minister of finance and economy of Pakistan and the author of the
Human Development Report. The concept of human security is seen as a "natural extension of
development in the security field" (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy, 2007).
In turn, the concept of human security adds something new to the debate on security by
formulating new questions to the questions commonly asked in security studies, namely the
questions of whose security? Security from what? and Security through what? On the first
question, the concept of human security places humans (individuals) as the answer. However,
this concept does not necessarily ignore state or community security, it just emphasizes
human security holistically, so state or community security is still accommodated as long as it
is related to human security. This concept views humans as actors who are equal to other
actors in HI and are no longer under the shadow of state security as it exists in the traditional
security paradigm. Furthermore, on the second question, the concept of human security offers
an expansion of sources and forms of threats so as to accommodate threats that are visible and
invisible, objective and subjective, as well as direct and indirect threats. Broadly speaking, the
concept of security Human security identifies three kinds of threats: socio-economic threats,
personal security threats, and environmental threats. In its development, the Human
Development Report issued by UNDP in 1994 identified seven components of human
security, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political.
The seven components of human security can also be interpreted as sources of threats to
human security. And for the last question, the concept of human security offers a way to
fulfill human security with connected and interdependent networks at the global level. This is
because the sources of threats identified are transboundary in nature and therefore require
policies at the global level.
With the acceptance of the concept of human security as an international agenda, this has
also affected the academic field. There are now many studies on the concept of human
security and its linkages to global politics (see Black, MacLean, & Shaw, 2006; den Boer &
de Wilde, 2008; Neil MacFarlane & Khong, 2006; K. O'Brien, St. Clair, & Kristoffersen,
2010; Roberts, 2010). In the context of border studies, the concept of human security offers an
alternative to the concept of people-oriented state development and in the context of border
discussions, it can help to formulate border development policies that are more people
oriented (Ackleson, 2003; Ajdari & Asgharpour, 2011; Busumtwi-Sam, 2008; Kester, 2017;
Shibuya, 2016). Development with the human security paradigm can complement the
discourse on border development, especially for developing countries. In addition, this
paradigm can also complement the agenda of state border research that has been dominated
by traditional patterns that revolve around concepts such as sovereignty, militarization, natural
resource exploitation, and citizenship issues (Eilenberg, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Eilenberg &
Wadley, 2009).
Conclusions
Because the concept of human security is considered as By extending development
programs to security issues, the concept challenges the traditional paradigm that has been
used in security studies. In traditional security studies, the state is the central actor and the
focal point of discussion. In addition, the state is also the referent object of security where all
efforts and policies taken by stakeholders are aimed at securing the state. Therefore, issues
regarding state sovereignty and survival become the center of attention in this paradigm. Then
the perception of threats to the state is identified through military threats such as other
countries' aggression, nuclear war, territorial annexation, and so on. It can be seen from this
description that the traditional security paradigm is strongly influenced by the thoughts of
realism and neo-realism in IR studies which place the state as the main actor in international
political interactions. This paper emphasizes that human security is an important factor in the
study of state borders. Efforts to protect human security open up opportunities for border
regions to accelerate the development process, with close links between economic
development and social development. The human security approach needs to be integrated as
the core of the planning and implementation process of border region development based on
human development. Human security is one of the options that can be applied in managing
border areas, especially in the context of developing state border areas by emphasizing human
security.
