*This article also appears as a chapter in the 2024 KCIS Conference volume that was published in Sept. 2025

 

The Canadian Armed Forces will also continue to promote the integration of human security considerations into planning, emphasizing the prevention of escalation in conflict zones, and collaborating with partners to address cross-cutting issues such as the protection of civilians and the impact of technology on security.

Our North, Strong and Free:

A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence

Introduction

During the 1990s, state-based militaries around the world transformed themselves to take account of the emergent global security environment. During that period, globalization and the withdrawal of the Cold War overlay converged, resulting in a complex phenomenon of failed and failing states. In turn, new wars characterized by the many humanitarian crises of the 1990s emerged within this environment and became a threat to international peace and security, leaving the international community with the dilemma of whether to intervene. Within this environment, human security emerged as the most comprehensive and multidimensional referent for security alongside the state.  

Re-emergence of Human Security

Human security, a concept first introduced in 1994 in the UN Human Development Report was defined as follows:

Human security can be said to have two main aspects. It means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life— whether in homes, in jobs or in communities. Such threats can exist at all levels of national income and development.[1]

Human security was conceptualized across seven pillars: economic, food, environmental, personal, health, community and political, addressing both freedom from fear and freedom from want.[2]  It was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 2012 and remains particularly relevant today as a guiding framework to deal with the fast-paced, diverse, and inter-connected security[3] and social[4] challenges that confront humanity today. The recent conflicts in Ukraine and Israel demonstrate that the concept remains relevant due to violent acts committed against civilian populations.

The UN has consistently advanced the concept of human security since its inception. In a 2022 study on human security, it re-emphasized that policy makers and scholars must look beyond protecting the nation-state and focus on basic human needs, physical integrity, and human dignity.[5] Further, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (UK MOD) also undertook renewed efforts to address the human insecurity that arises from natural disasters, conflicts, chronic and persistent poverty, health pandemics and international terrorism for individuals, communities, nations and regions.[6] While the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has addressed human security topics across a variety of missions over the past decades, it was typically a secondary outcome that arose from military tasks delivering state security.[7] Formal doctrine on human security does not exist within the CAF; however, recent human security scholarship and research within the CAF has emerged, calling for a new human security approach to be conceived, designed, and managed for the CAF over the next decade.[8] This re-emphasis is part of the continuing debate and theorization of the promise and peril of human security, recognizing that concepts of security must include people as well as states as compliments of one another. Indeed, human security and its recent re-emphasis highlight its endurance as a complementary referent for security alongside traditional conceptions of state security. 

Revisiting Military Models and Human Security

The current security environment and coincident re-emphasis on human security establishes the demand for a closer look at the military applicability and scientific research relevant to the utilization and implementation of human security as a concept for the CAF.  Military models where protection of individuals is given priority over states exist theoretically. These models are as follows: a Cosmopolitan Military;[9] a Human Security Response Force;[10] and the United Nations Emergency Peace Service. [11] An analysis of the theoretical underpinnings of these models can provide useful insight into how militaries can address human security to better understand and respond to complex security challenges that exist today and in future. Indeed, while human security has evolved and matured since its inception in 1994,[12] recent concerns around human insecurity have become more prominent as a result of COVID-19, digital technology, climate change, and biodiversity loss.[13] Further, from a security viewpoint, the continued prioritization of state-centric security perspectives is inadequate for  determining  and addressing the panoply of threats that challenge the “survival, livelihood, and dignity” of people today, as has been demonstrated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict.[14] The same can be argued for the Israel-Hamas conflict that continues to have a significant impact on the civil environment.[15] If these conflicts, among others, are viewed through a human security lens, greater insight can be gained concerning the consequences at the state, regional, and international levels, allowing for a more fulsome response to the threats that exist alongside those informing state-centric security. 

The theoretical military models described herein highlight physical, moral, and conceptual domains that differ in many respects from the state-based militaries of today (See Annex A for a comparative table of the military model characteristics). While these theoretical models postulate structures beyond the state, this discussion is primarily concerned with the principal tenets of the models and how they might be considered within state-based militaries, as the state is most likely to remain the single most important organizing unit of political, economic, and security affairs for some time.[16]

The discussion will begin with a descriptive review of each of the military models in order to provide a basic understanding of each respective model. Physical (e.g., personnel, weapons, equipment, materiel, resources and technology) moral (e.g., professionalism and ethos, leadership, morale and esprit de corps, approach to training, history and traditions, motivation and sense of purpose) and conceptual (doctrine, principles of war, education and ability to learn and adapt) components will be discussed as these constitute the basic foundations of the CAF.[17] Such an assessment may provide some insight into the type of military required to inform military thinking concerning issues of human security. It may also assist the CAF in conceiving and designing capabilities that may support the adoption and management of a formal human security framework.

Cosmopolitan Military (CM)

Warfighting, conceived in its traditional Clausewitzian form, is considered “…merely a continuation of policy.”[18]  Viewed in this light, a military’s primary purpose is to defend the state and, when called upon, fight and win in war. Militaries are a strategic and a decisive element of national power.[19] This traditional concept has undergone significant change since the end of the Cold War, however. Tyranny, genocide, and gross violations of human rights have been the clarion call for new developments in the application of military force. As intimated by CM scholars Lorraine Elliot and Graeme Cheeseman, there is now a “…need to limit transnational harm, control and overcome political and other forms of violence, and reconstruct democratic legitimacy.”[20] While the primary role of the military, defence of the state, is not contested at this point, Elliot and Cheeseman argue that state militaries can be used to “…defend the moral community of humankind.”[21] Drawing on its Kantian roots[22] and extended through cosmopolitan democracy[23] and cosmopolitan law enforcement,[24] it is now possible to conceptualize a CM.

Cosmopolitanism positions militaries as a “… ‘new military model,’ replacing the negative aim of containment with a positive one: to promote democracy, regional stability and economic prosperity.”[25] Although coercive force remains crucial to the cosmopolitan mission, it is not seen as the organizing principle.[26] Thus, this broader conceptualization of armed forces may very well require a paradigm shift in thinking about how militaries are conceived, designed, and managed.

Moral Domain. Many of the moral domain components of a traditional armed force will be the same for a CM. However, it is within this domain where we witness the single greatest hurdle in conceiving a CM. Although armed forces around the world re-invent themselves regularly, none have reached the moral plane required of a CM.  That is, “[m]ilitary personnel engaged in cosmopolitan missions are expected to risk their lives not just, or even, for their co-nationals but for humanity as a whole.”[27] This is a significant cognitive shift on the moral plane and governments have not shown any disposition to sending militaries into areas of conflict for anything other than state-based objectives despite the rhetoric to the contrary.[28]

Physical Domain. Cosmopolitanism suggests that certain aspects of the physical domain will be different from traditional structures. A rapid force projection capability ([global] transport, communications, surveillance, rescue, medical, humanitarian assistance, civil emergency, and security) will be key for cosmopolitan missions.[29] Cosmopolitan authors argue that the equipment required for cosmopolitan missions will generally be “…cheaper than that which national armed forces order for imagined Clausewitzian wars in the future.”[30] The physical domain will also require a greater diversity of individuals due to the mix of military and non-military tasks that a force may be required to address.

Conceptual Domain. While explicit indicators of the conceptual domain of a cosmopolitan military do not exist, some theorizing on cosmopolitanism in the CAF is evident. Indeed, Canada’s military at the turn of the century reflected what could be referred to as an emerging cosmopolitan-like military.[31] This assessment resulted in part from a foreign policy that signaled cosmopolitan-like sentiment through a focus on a human security agenda.[32] Further, the Canadian Army's strategy at the time articulated a cosmopolitan-like sentiment in stating that "[g]iven the cosmopolitan nature of Canadian society and our desire for justice, human rights violations and human suffering anywhere in the world demand response.”[33] Any indicators of the CAF representing a cosmopolitan-like military model today are implicitly linked to human security; however, it has been argued that a "formal effort is needed to build a human security framework applicable to all levels of command, from strategic, through the operational to the tactical."[34] Perhaps a return to human security, at least conceptually, is currently underway as, for the first time, the term “human security” was explicitly mentioned in Canada’s 2024 defence policy.[35]

As defined above, a true CM does not exist. Cosmopolitan scholars argue the physical and conceptual domains of a CM may be more easily attained; however, the paradigmatic shift required in the moral plane for soldiers, militaries, and governments is seen as the single largest hurdle for the conception of a true CM. Yet despite this, cosmopolitan scholars maintain that the vestiges of a CM are identifiable today as evidenced with the CAF.[36]

Human Security Response Force (HSRF)

The European Union (EU) recognized, through their European Security Strategy (ESS) released in 2003, the need to make a greater contribution to global security. The Barcelona Report, sponsored by the EU in 2004, established the framework for the HSRF.  The report acknowledged greater recognition of global insecurity brought on by “lawlessness, impoverishment, exclusivist ideologies and the daily use of violence” and determined that “Europe needs military forces but they need to be configured and used in quite new ways.”[37] The basis of this proposed policy rests on a recognition that human security as well as state security should be the foundation of a new policy.[38] This proposed shift was based on the following arguments:

• Morality – all human life is of equal value and European state and non-state actors have had strong support for humanitarian action;

• Legal – if human security is to be considered a narrower category of human rights, then the EU has a right as well as a legal obligation to act under articles 55 and 56 of the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and

• Enlightened self-interest – the negative consequences of conflict areas or failed states spills beyond its borders and either directly or indirectly affects the EU.[39]

Moral Domain. Within the moral domain, this model anticipates that the most important challenge will be the cultural shift and the development of a common ethos for soldiers and civilians within the HSRF and will require the following elements:

• Putting individual human beings, whomever they might be, above nation or homeland,

• Maintaining the military spirit of sacrifice, heroism, discipline, and excellence but combining it with the civilian spirit of listening, individual responsibility, empathy, and enabling others,

• Respect for and knowledge of law, and

• Awareness of gender dimensions of conflict and intervention.[40]

Notably, the legal justification for use of the HSRF does not yet exist except under those interventions authorized by the UN.  The debate concerning the legal justification for humanitarian intervention without UN authorization continues; however, the Barcelona Group speculated that a legal framework for an HSRF could be built “…on the domestic law of the host state, the domestic law of the member states and the rules of engagement, international criminal law, human rights law, and international humanitarian law.”[41]

Physical Domain. The structure envisioned to support this new security policy is called the HSRF. Conceived by Mary Kaldor in New and Old Wars, the HSRF would be employed in cosmopolitan law enforcement and would be roughly the size of a Division—15,000 members from both military and civilian backgrounds. The force would be comprised of three tiers:

1. A civil military planning headquarters based on existing structures – strategic planning, intelligence, etc.;

2. High readiness forces of about 5000 personnel – deployable headquarters with ‘Human Security Task Forces’;

3. A lower readiness force of about 10,000 personnel who occasionally train and exercise together. 

Soldiers for the HSRF would come from the proposed 60,000 personnel of the European Rapid Reaction Force and individual states would provide the civilian components.[42] Tier one would be the only permanent structure of the HSRF with tiers two and three remaining at dispersed homes stations.  The force was conceived as an addition to current state-based armed forces and existing multilateral structures resident within the EU. The HSRF indicated the need for two categories of equipment: that related to observation, information-gathering and telecommunications and that related to materiel equipment, such as transportation resources. In addition, the report called for dual-use capabilities between civilian and military equipment in order to reduce costs and increase flexibility.[43]

Conceptual Domain. The underlying conceptual component of the HRSF was cosmopolitan law enforcement. As explained by Mary Kaldor, cosmopolitan law enforcement is somewhere between soldiering and policing but notes that the majority of tasks envisioned for such a force, such as the capture of war criminals and maintaining ceasefires, are closer to peacekeeping. Kaldor maintains that the principles of peacekeeping—consent, impartiality, and minimum use of force—remain, with some modification, as principles governing a cosmopolitan force. It was acknowledged that an HSRF was indeed an ambitious project, noting that the legal justification for use of the HSRF did not exist beyond interventions authorized by the UN. As such, there was little further development of the conceptual component of the HSRF model.

The HSRF underpinned by a human security doctrine is a second example of a military model based on human security. The EU did not develop the HSRF and human security all but disappeared from the EU security discourse for a period of time.[44] However, in 2018–2019, human security re-emerged on the political agenda particularly with NATO, the UK, and as noted above, Canada. Indeed, as Kaldor noted in 2023, “human security is in the air,” highlighting that NATO members are mainstreaming human security throughout their armed forces.[45] While evidence has not appeared to support the re-emergence of the HSRF concept, it is clear that human security remains as a forceful component to any response to current and future conflict. 

United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS)

The concept of a UN standing military force conceived in some form to “guarantee the safety of citizens” is not a new development. From the United Nations Guard concept in 1948, to the Standby High Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG) established in 1994, the notion of a rapidly deployable force has a long history in the UN.[46]

Moral Domain. UNEPS, envisioned as a new capability for the UN, is already underpinned by the ethics and ethos outlined in the UN Charter "Preamble":

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,

• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.[47]

In terms of the use of force, the guiding principles of reasonable, proportionate and appropriate force also govern the employment of UNEPS forces. More specifically, it is argued by UNEPS scholars that “…the coherence, unity, and beneficial professionalization that would arise from direct UN recruitment and careful selection of individuals from among those who would volunteer to work in the UN Emergency Peace Service”[48] is the preferred method of manning UNEPS. UNEPS would look to generate a force representative of the diverse regions of the world with an equitable representation of from all genders. UNEPS scholars articulate the need for people “…with a diversity of professional and language skills covering these areas: human rights, gender, civilian police, military service, humanitarian assistance, judicial proceedings and penal matters, conflict transformation, and environmental protection.”[49]

Physical Domain. UNEPS envisions a permanent location to house “carefully selected, trained and coherently organized” volunteers under a centralized command structure.[50] This will allow for the rapid deployment of portions of the 12-15,000 civilian, police, judicial and military personnel 24 to 48 hours after UN authorization. With a “first responder philosophy,” UNEPS would provide robust security as well as necessary skills and services to address a variety of human needs. Tasks include on-site fact finding, preventative action, information gathering, humanitarian assistance, prompt start-up of peacebuilding operations, re-training police, and responding to other humanitarian crises as necessary: “[i]ts purpose is law enforcement and protection of innocent people, not territorial conquest or to vanquish a foe.”[51] UNEPS is designed to enforce international humanitarian law and is principally established to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and humanitarian disasters as well as respond to environmental accidents and natural disasters.[52] It is not generally considered a panacea for security problems; however, it is designed to complement, not replace, other essential national, regional and UN efforts.[53]

Like a CM and HSRF, UNEPS does not exist today; however, it remains a key model that could move a human security focus from words to deeds.[54] Indeed, as noted by Juan Méndez, former Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, there is a requirement now to move the idea of UNEPS from academia into state government discussions as well as  engaging media and opinion-makers in order to construct a powerful worldwide movement.[55] Concerning this model, the UN represents a well-established platform from which UNEPS can be translated from words to deeds.  This fact, coupled with the antecedents of a UN based military force noted earlier, suggests that UNEPS may represent the most practical model of the three listed in this paper.

Conceptual Domain. As noted above, the conceptual domain of UNEPS centres on the humanitarian principles of the UN. While UNEPS was considered initially as an evolution of the UN Standby Arrangement System (UNSAS) or its replacement, the Peacekeeping Capability Readiness System (PCRS),[56] the stand-up of SHIRBRIG represented the closest manifestation of the UNEPS concept to date. As noted by acclaimed UNEPS scholar, Peter Langille, “[d]espite [SHIRBRIGs] shortcomings, it is the only organization with a Charter commitment to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to secure wider disarmament, social justice and well-being.”[57] SHIRBRIG developed a doctrine, standard operating procedures (SOPS), and training standards but experienced significant gaps between SHIRBRIG and non-SHIRBRIG elements like mission language, computer literacy, and handover procedures when deployed. These shortcomings exposed a lack of ability to learn and adapt and when coupled with diminishing partner state funding due to differing priorities, a lack of appropriate missions for SHIRBRIG, and a change in the nature of conflict from peacekeeping to peace enforcement,[58] SHIRBRIG began to lose its relevance and was disbanded in 2009.

Conclusion

The theoretical models discussed above represent normative change in both the physical, moral, and conceptual domains which make up all militaries.  Each of the models described above converges around the notion that security is no longer solely about the state. A Cosmopolitan Military is a new military model whose purpose is to defend the moral community of humankind. The Human Security Response Force is a military model that attempts to capture the essence of this new age based on human security principles. A third model, the United Nations Emergency Peace Service, is designed to safeguard law enforcement and the protection of innocent people, and not for the purposes of territorial conquest or to vanquish a foe. Each of these models converges on a new normative characteristic with respect to the use of force, that is, the primary focus of their operations is to defend individuals. The convergence of these distinct models around human security is indicative of the strength of the idea that militaries, under specific circumstances, can be used in support of human security outcomes.

Besides a human security focus, several commonalities exist between the models that may be instructive for the CAF when considering the integration of human security considerations:

• A rapid deployment capability in terms of hours versus days is required;

• The physical domain: greater integration of military and civilian personnel; equipment must be of dual use capability (for both civilian and military personnel);

• The moral domain: a requirement for a significant change where individual sacrifice extends beyond the state into the realm of humanity as a whole, signifying a profound cultural shift in what it means to be a soldier;

• The conceptual domain: besides being a war fighter, the soldier must take on roles as soldier-scholar, soldier-diplomat, and/or soldier-constable signifying greater educational and training demands;

• Soldiers would be motivated by a sense of accomplishment that exists beyond the defence of the state; and

• The adherence to a new legal framework based on enforcement of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Perhaps the time has arrived where a convergence of these normative military models centred around human security is required. Such a confluence could facilitate discussion and further research aimed specifically at the integration of human security considerations into planning for the CAF, “emphasizing the prevention of escalation in conflict zones and collaborating with partners to address cross-cutting issues such as the protection of civilians and the impact of technology on security.”[59]

Annex A

Table 1: New Military Models Characteristics