Human security and international accountability

Abstract

This Master Dissertation examines the evolution of the concept of human security and its operational implications for international accountability in situations involving mass atrocity crimes. Human security reorients the referent of security from the state to individuals and communities, encompassing protection of physical safety, dignity, and well-being. The United Nations Development Program’s 1994 report advanced a multidimensional framework grounded in freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom to live with dignity, thereby challenging sovereignty-centred legal and political structures. In doing so, it encouraged both state and non-state actors to reconsider responsibilities toward populations, expanding preventive diplomacy and providing normative foundations later reflected in the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The establishment of the International Criminal Court in 1998 marked a major institutional milestone, seeking to prevent and punish genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when domestic authorities fail to act. Building upon the experiences of ad hoc tribunals such as the ICTY and ICTR, the Court institutionalized permanent accountability and developed jurisprudence concerning leadership responsibility and systematic violations. Parallel developments at regional levels expanded avenues for individual legal standing, enabling victims to challenge abuses beyond domestic judicial limits, reinforcing the gradual juridical institutionalization of international human protection norms. Despite these advances, the authority of human security remains limited in practice. Enforcement depends largely on state cooperation, while the absence of major powers, including the United States, China, Russia, and India, sustains perceptions of selective justice. Although post–Cold War governance has increasingly invoked human security, international responses continue to reflect alliances and strategic interests. The veto power within the United Nations Security Council further preserves great-power dominance, constraining collective action in crises such as Gaza and Ukraine and revealing persistent tensions between normative commitments and geopolitical calculations in contemporary international order and future collective enforcement possibilities for lasting global accountability mechanisms.