In 2022 NATO embraced a considered and comprehensive approach to human security. Intended as a complement and augmentation of NATO’s traditional focus on conflict through military means, this new paradigm signaled a values-based approach to addressing security challenges facing the Alliance. NATO describes it as a “a multi-sectoral approach to security that gives primacy to people.” Implementing the change, however, has been the hard part; the challenge for NATO has been to transform promises and policy pronouncements into real behavioral changes in doctrine and military conduct.
While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 played little role in the policy’s trajectory, the horrors it revealed propelled deeper consideration of the values and challenges facing the Alliance. The challenge the war in Ukraine presents to the Alliance is how and where it should fill in the gaps between its own pledged and aspirational conduct on the battlefield, defined in part by its human security policy, and what that might mean for how, when and where it supports and supplies external partners. Should human security considerations inform or influence decision-making of the Alliance or individual Allies? Will continued Russian atrocities and Ukrainian responses and restraint warrant more or different assistance?
NATO formally adopted its approach to human security at the June 2022 Madrid summit. It was part of the latest revision to the Alliance’s Strategic Concept – a roughly every ten-year exercise that revises and updates NATO’s core concerns, values, and approach. The inclusion of human security in the new Strategic Concept, accompanied by its Guiding Principles later the same year, was more a reflection of an incremental process NATO had been pursuing since 2016 when leaders at the Warsaw Summit first adopted a considered approach to the protection of civilians in conflict zones. Since then, NATO has made progress on other elements of human security, including a summit endorsement in 2021 of a policy on Preventing and Responding to Conflict-Related Sexual Violence and approving at the 2023 Vilnius Summit the Alliance’s first policy on the Protection of Children in Armed Conflict and strengthening its Policy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings. A final linked area of concern has been cultural property protection. These five elements are the building blocks for NATO’s approach to human security and are meant to govern the conduct of NATO armed forces in a conflict.
In parallel with the NATO process on human security, the U.S. Department of Defense has moved decisively to embrace a policy sensitive to the impact of armed conflict on civilian populations. The Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP) lays out a series of major actions the Pentagon will implement to mitigate and respond to civilian harm and is intended to guide how U.S. forces will prepare, plan, and execute military operations. Calling it a “strategic priority as well as a moral imperative,” U.S. Defense Secretary Austin in a memo to his leadership team, pledged to incorporate civilian harm mitigation considerations into informing how military operations are planned and conducted. Not surprisingly, given the U.S. dominance of NATO, this strong and determined American approach has also invigorated Alliance and other national militaries’ policies and actions. For example, the German and Dutch militaries have developed their own strong national policies prioritizing civilian protection on and near the battlefield.
The situation in Ukraine has had an indirect and powerful effect on NATO thinking in this area. While NATO and NATO Allies and many partners have collectively supported Ukraine in its fight against Russia, NATO forces have not been directly involved, rendering the human security considerations technically inapplicable. In fact, the focus of global concerns has been on the many human rights violations perpetrated by Russian forces, including POW executions, forced migration of children, and indiscriminate attacks against civilian targets. The intensity and extent of these transgressions have triggered widespread international revulsion and led to Ukraine’s ongoing genocide case against Russia at the International Court of Justice in the Hague. These are genuine and serious concerns more centered on atrocities and civilian protection.
Ukraine has also faced its own accusations of human rights violations, including intimidation of journalists and excessive prosecutions for collaboration. Ukrainian authorities have pledged investigations and corrective measures, however so far without concrete results. In any event, these accusations do not appear to be part of an established pattern or represent a formal government policy or practice.
NATO’s approach to human security, while blessed by Allied leaders and further explicated since its June 2022 adoption as part of the Strategic Concept, is still a work in progress and is meant to serve as a guide to military conduct and Alliance actions. The Alliance may want to be more explicit in how it extends its concern for human security to conflict zones where it may not have a direct role but still views a stake for Alliance security. This could involve the integration or conditioning of NATO human security concepts and requirements into the training and equipping of the Ukrainian armed forces.
NATO’s adoption of human security as a guiding concept for its own operations was a forceful and necessary update of its values on and near the battlefield. The war in Ukraine presents the Alliance with its most significant challenge in decades. Demonstrating the importance of human security while navigating this critical juncture will contribute to NATO’s identity and coherence.
The Impact of Ukraine on NATO’s Approach to Human Security
By Andrew Hyde
Human Rights & IHL
In 2022 NATO embraced a considered and comprehensive approach to human security. Intended as a complement and augmentation of NATO’s traditional focus on conflict through military means, this new paradigm signaled a values-based approach to addressing security challenges facing the Alliance. NATO describes it as a “a multi-sectoral approach to security that gives primacy to people.” Implementing the change, however, has been the hard part; the challenge for NATO has been to transform promises and policy pronouncements into real behavioral changes in doctrine and military conduct.
While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 played little role in the policy’s trajectory, the horrors it revealed propelled deeper consideration of the values and challenges facing the Alliance. The challenge the war in Ukraine presents to the Alliance is how and where it should fill in the gaps between its own pledged and aspirational conduct on the battlefield, defined in part by its human security policy, and what that might mean for how, when and where it supports and supplies external partners. Should human security considerations inform or influence decision-making of the Alliance or individual Allies? Will continued Russian atrocities and Ukrainian responses and restraint warrant more or different assistance?
NATO formally adopted its approach to human security at the June 2022 Madrid summit. It was part of the latest revision to the Alliance’s Strategic Concept – a roughly every ten-year exercise that revises and updates NATO’s core concerns, values, and approach. The inclusion of human security in the new Strategic Concept, accompanied by its Guiding Principles later the same year, was more a reflection of an incremental process NATO had been pursuing since 2016 when leaders at the Warsaw Summit first adopted a considered approach to the protection of civilians in conflict zones. Since then, NATO has made progress on other elements of human security, including a summit endorsement in 2021 of a policy on Preventing and Responding to Conflict-Related Sexual Violence and approving at the 2023 Vilnius Summit the Alliance’s first policy on the Protection of Children in Armed Conflict and strengthening its Policy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings. A final linked area of concern has been cultural property protection. These five elements are the building blocks for NATO’s approach to human security and are meant to govern the conduct of NATO armed forces in a conflict.
In parallel with the NATO process on human security, the U.S. Department of Defense has moved decisively to embrace a policy sensitive to the impact of armed conflict on civilian populations. The Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP) lays out a series of major actions the Pentagon will implement to mitigate and respond to civilian harm and is intended to guide how U.S. forces will prepare, plan, and execute military operations. Calling it a “strategic priority as well as a moral imperative,” U.S. Defense Secretary Austin in a memo to his leadership team, pledged to incorporate civilian harm mitigation considerations into informing how military operations are planned and conducted. Not surprisingly, given the U.S. dominance of NATO, this strong and determined American approach has also invigorated Alliance and other national militaries’ policies and actions. For example, the German and Dutch militaries have developed their own strong national policies prioritizing civilian protection on and near the battlefield.
The situation in Ukraine has had an indirect and powerful effect on NATO thinking in this area. While NATO and NATO Allies and many partners have collectively supported Ukraine in its fight against Russia, NATO forces have not been directly involved, rendering the human security considerations technically inapplicable. In fact, the focus of global concerns has been on the many human rights violations perpetrated by Russian forces, including POW executions, forced migration of children, and indiscriminate attacks against civilian targets. The intensity and extent of these transgressions have triggered widespread international revulsion and led to Ukraine’s ongoing genocide case against Russia at the International Court of Justice in the Hague. These are genuine and serious concerns more centered on atrocities and civilian protection.
Ukraine has also faced its own accusations of human rights violations, including intimidation of journalists and excessive prosecutions for collaboration. Ukrainian authorities have pledged investigations and corrective measures, however so far without concrete results. In any event, these accusations do not appear to be part of an established pattern or represent a formal government policy or practice.
NATO’s approach to human security, while blessed by Allied leaders and further explicated since its June 2022 adoption as part of the Strategic Concept, is still a work in progress and is meant to serve as a guide to military conduct and Alliance actions. The Alliance may want to be more explicit in how it extends its concern for human security to conflict zones where it may not have a direct role but still views a stake for Alliance security. This could involve the integration or conditioning of NATO human security concepts and requirements into the training and equipping of the Ukrainian armed forces.
NATO’s adoption of human security as a guiding concept for its own operations was a forceful and necessary update of its values on and near the battlefield. The war in Ukraine presents the Alliance with its most significant challenge in decades. Demonstrating the importance of human security while navigating this critical juncture will contribute to NATO’s identity and coherence.
Recent & Related