Individual Security: A renewed demand for changing the reference object of security

Considering the serious challenges humanity is facing at present, such as climate change, biodiversity loss and an associated mass-extinction event, inequality in development, and a recent global pandemic, the demand to change the state focus of security to a focus on individual security has increased considerably. Indeed, all the fundamental security challenges humanity is facing are individual-centred, even global challenges such as climate change, a global pandemic, or widespread extreme underdevelopment. In the end, it is individuals and, by extension, communities that are directly exposed to those threats. The state is subjected to those security challenges only indirectly (through political and economic instability), at a secondary level.

Take, for example, climate-change-related risks

While representing a fundamental global challenge, its impact is locally and regionally specific, with individuals exposed to it at different levels and to different extents. Some localities experience repeated extreme weather events, with devastating impacts on the lives and livelihoods of the people, while people in other regions are spared such destruction. In the same way, sea-level rise is another global climate-change-related risk that generates local and regional impacts. People living in some of Asia’s megacities are more likely to be confronted by sea-level rise than people living in Europe and the Americas. In addition, Southeast Asia has a higher exposure to sea-level rise than other regions, with the implications that some localities, and their people, within Southeast Asia will be subjected to the impacts more than localities in other parts of the globe. We may look, for example, at the Mekong Delta, the ‘rice-bowl’ of Vietnam, where exposure to sea-level rise and the associated salt water intrusion represents a direct threat to the agriculture sector in the delta, consequently undermining, if not completely destroying, the livelihood of many local farmers and their communities. Yet, the impact will spread even beyond the Mekong Delta, as other people and communities will feel the impact from reduced rice production. And this, in turn, may even generate extensive social and political unrest and, ultimately, a risk situation for the state. While, in this case, one can make a direct link between climate-change impacts and the potential threat to state security, even so, the threat to state security is transmitted via individual and community insecurity, and thus can be described as of a secondary order. Indeed, it is individual security, and by extension community security, that is primarily exposed to the impacts of climate-change-related risks, thus supporting a reconsideration of the reference object of security.

Extensive underdevelopment signifies another example of individual insecurity

Extensive underdevelopment represents a deeply personal challenge, and is often based on structural settings. Being underpaid or earning low wages, for example, has the potential to generate an extensive impact on the livelihood outlook of an individual, undermining his/her ability to pay for food and health services, or to afford a living space. This individual aspect of insecurity is even recognized by global strategies such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with the aim of ending hunger and poverty in all its forms. There was even a famous pledge made within it: that no one would be left behind. This pledge offers another indication of recognizing the individual security focus in addressing global challenges. What is more, one simply has to consider some of the targets included in the 2030 Agenda – such as eliminating poverty, no hunger, good health, quality education, gender equality, clean water, and sanitation – to recognize the individual focus inherent in the strategy. All of these are examples of improving the livelihood of individuals. Moreover, those negative impacts at the individual level also have the ability to generate transgenerational individual impacts. One simply has to consider the case of impoverished parents who are not able to provide enough food for their children for healthy development, or who are unable to support their children’s education, both of which will have lifelong implications. As is the case with climate change, while extensive and widespread underdevelopment is a global challenge, the impact generated is primarily felt at the individual level and, by extension, the community level. State security again will be affected only indirectly, when underdevelopment leads to social and political instability. Therefore, as in the previous case on climate-change impacts, the threat to state stability is of a secondary nature. Such examples justify the demand to reconsider a change of the reference object of security from the state to the individual.

Indeed, when one assesses the most current fundamental challenges facing humanity, the question arises: Whose security is under threat? The answer is rather straightforward: It is individuals who are confronted by those threats. States, as units of analysis, are facing threats only on a secondary level, such as a response to social and political instability based on the insecurity that individuals and communities are exposed to. Clearly, it would be misleading to equate the security of individuals with the security of the state. In this regard, it is also worth remembering that the disadvantaged and marginalized in a society are suffering more from climate-change impacts or from other emergencies (such as a pandemic), as they are more exposed in the first place and have fewer resources with which to respond to emergencies. This offers another argument for shifting the reference object from the state to the individual.

What is more, a shift in the reference object of security would also present another opportunity to address more seriously the current fundamental security challenges humanity is facing, since so far this seems not to be the case. Neither the goals set in the 2030 Agenda nor in the Paris Agreement will be implemented within the timeframe agreed on. As an example, the 2023 Sustainable Development Report highlights that only 15 percent of all SDGs are on track to be implemented, and the fundamental promise ‘that no one will be left behind’ is no longer expected to be reached by 2030. The current outlook for addressing climate change is deeply disappointing, as well, since, based on current assessments, we are on track to reach 2.6° C warming by the end of the century. Obviously, this will increase the likelihood of cascading effects, impacts reaching beyond the initial impact, as well as crossing critical climate thresholds, with far-reaching repercussions for individual livelihoods, communities, and, indeed, humanity. Even today, the implications of failing to address the climate change dynamic have serious consequences for implementing the 2030 Agenda and are even likely to undermine development gains made earlier.

The failure to successful implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement within the time frame and goals selected also indicates our limited capacity for implementing global governance strategies. The politics of singular interest currently implemented by the Trump II government not only shape the international system but also further undermine our ability to formulate and implement global governance strategies. With it, our ability to address the fundamental threats humanity is currently facing will be also undermined. The biggest victim of this process will be the individual security of billions of people, especially the marginalized in societies everywhere. Therefore, changing the reference object of security from the state to the individual has become an urgent appeal.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Statecraft Institute.