CYIL 2012

HUMAN SECURITY IN TIMES OF WAR OR TOWARDS A FOURTH WAVE OF HUMANIZATION… The third wave of humanization has changed the face of IHL, making it still more individual-focused. This is however not to say that IHL is now solely modelled by the requirements of humanity and that military necessity plays no role in it anymore. It does, in many respects: reciprocity remains a relevant factor and the system is still not free of institutions such as collateral damage or reprisals. Moreover, the post-1990 period gives evidence that reveals that humanization of IHL is not necessarily a one way, irreversible process. There were various attempts to either bypass or modify IHL regulation in order to make it again more sympathetic to the interests of (some) Human security is a rather recent concept, which emerged in the post-1990 period. It was born under the impetus of the same factual events that brought about the third wave of humanization of IHL (the end of the Cold War, globalisation processes). In fact, the evolution of the concept and the third wave of humanization of IHL have taken place more or less simultaneously. In such a situation, one could expect that the two processes would naturally unfold in mutual symbiosis, sustaining each other. This section shows that this has not necessarily been the case and that areas of incompatibility persist. It also argues that it has to be so: while further humanization is still possible in some areas of IHL, the system cannot do away with certain institutions without rendering itself unrealistic and/or utterly unnecessary. 3.1 Areas of Convergences and Divergences The link between IHL and human security can obviously be looked at from many different perspectives. One of them consists in assessing IHL, as it stands after the three waves of humanization, from the viewpoint of the four parameters of human security pertaining to the referent object, the threat, the means of ensuring security, and the actors granting it. The first difficulty one has to overcome in this context is the terminological one. The language of the security studies in which the concept of human security speaks needs to be translated into the legal discourse used by IHL. One could say that the referent object would more or less translate into the object of legal regulation, the threat into the content of the regulation, the means of ensuring security into the tools of enforcement and the actors granting security into holders of obligations (and potentially rights). The translation is rather rough, yet it can help assess the areas of convergence and divergence between the two areas. The “referent object” (security for whom?) under the security studies encompasses “things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to survival”. 17 Under IHL, the term could refer to the circle of actors whose interests are legally protected. In the current stage of evolution of IHL, this circle includes belligerent parties and individuals. With a dose of simplification, it is possible to say 17 B. Buzan, O. Waever, J. De Wilde, Security, A New Framework For Analysis, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder/London, 1998, p. 36. states, especially in the framework of the so-called war on terror. 3. International Humanitarian Law and Human Security

113