Search

Human security has become a part of national security strategies despite its lack of unique definitions and approaches. There is no question about the connection between human security and human rights because both concepts put human beings into focus. This paper attempts to analyze the relationship between human security and human rights by answering whether security itself can be considered a human right. Human rights can be seen as a conceptual framework or normative basis of human rights, which delineate and concretize human security. On the other hand, as a part of national security strategies, human security can create a stronger obligation for national security systems regarding human rights. Human rights are a key reference object for human security, but also the analytic frame for the assessment of risks, threats, and other security challenges. Human security based on human rights has a stronger chance to be adopted and disseminated, and human rights, as a part of human security, are more likely to be observed and respected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Lisbon Treaty has brought significant changes into the architecture of the European Union. The most important novelty, however, is the establishment of a full unity of the Union structure achieved by creating new and strengthening the existing elements. The new elements of this unity are the disappearance of the European Community, the „independence“ of the European Atomic Energy Community, consituting the European Union as a single entity and the introduction of EU values. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the existing elements of the common institutional mechanisms, rules on amending the founding treaties and EU membership. However, consituting the Union as a single entity which has replaced and succeeded the European Communities has not abolished the EU elements of diversity. In the areas that differed, even before the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, from the community pillar, there remain significant differences in the nature and the scope of competences of the Union institutions. This mainly regards the common foreign and security policy, which now includes the defense policy, where the existing model of inter-state cooperation has been only slightly interfered with. In contrast, in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which has become part of a larger Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the inter-state model of cooperation has been abandoned in some of its most important elements. However, the implementation of some of the important elements of the supranational model has been postponed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]