The Arab Spring of 2011, which originated in Tunisia and soon spread to neighbouring North African countries and to the Middle East, consisted of a range of protests against oppressive governments to oust dictators [1]. In Syria these protests were suppressed by the government with the implementation of violent methods [2, 3] such as: opening fire on protesting crowds; the use of landmines and cluster bombs; and, the arrest of innocent people who were later detained, tortured and women were sexually abused [3, 4]. This violence soon escalated into a full-blown civil war [2] as armed opposition groups openly started to confront state forces.[4] In turn, the state forces intensified the ferocity of their methods by using chemical weapons and gathering their prisoners in starvation camps [5]. These conditions have resulted in, among other things, the destabilisation of security in Syria [6] that established the perfect environment for extremist groups such as ISIS, which originated in Iraq, [7] to infiltrate Syrian territory [8].

ISIS is a Sunni Muslim group and an affiliate of the Al-Qaeda terrorist organisation [8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. This group believes that their interpretation of the holy book of Islam (Quran) should prevail, and they will pursue the enforcement of their version even if this means resorting to drastic measures that they consider to be warranted by their jihad or “holy war”—measures such as car and suicide bombings, kidnapping, rape and beheadings [13,14]. The conflict has already resulted in the internal displacement of over 7.6 million Syrians and more than 3.2 million Iraqis [15]. As a result over 4.2 million Syrians [16] and more than 180 000 Iraqis [17] are currently seeking asylum [18, 19].

The activities of the Syrian government coupled with the attacks by ISIS have contributed to what is being described as one of the largest humanitarian crises since World War II, [20] and the question the international community has since been confronted with is whether third states can or should intervene in order to protect the people, as the Syrian government is clearly unable or unwilling to stop or prevent these abuses from occurring within its territory [21]. As a result of this crisis a US-led coalition was formed with the primary purpose of conducting airstrikes in both Syria and Iraq in order to eliminate ISIS [22, 23, 24]. The coalition, which initially consisted of five members [23], is now composed of more than 60 countries [23, 24]. By April 2016 the coalition had conducted 11,308 strikes, managing to destroy a great deal of ISIS equipment [25]. They have also crippled ISIS activities and driven members of this organisation from certain areas which were under their control. In addition, Iraq and Kurdistan have sent troops to Syria in order to physically confront and defeat ISIS [13]. US personnel have also been dispatched to these areas with the purpose of training and equipping these forces [26].

Although these international efforts have resulted in regaining control of important cities, these military approaches have escalated and inflamed the violence, of which innocent civilians bear the consequences. The continuing violence and the resulting threats or insecurities negatively affect the lives, freedom, dignity and development of the people, to name but a few of the deleterious social and individual effects [27, 28]. For that reason, the aim of this article is to explore the applicability of a human security approach to the conflict in Syria that focuses among other aspects on minimising violence [29], mitigating the effects of the conflict [27, 30], protecting people [29], restoring peace and eliminating the grounds that resulted in the development of these conditions in the first place [27].

To achieve this aim the concept of human security will firstly be explained in brief terms in paragraph 2. This will be done with specific reference to the characteristics of human security in the context of Syria and Iraq, the implementation phases of a human security programme in general, an specific examples of situations where such a programme has been implemented. Paragraph 3 will identify possible threats to human security posed by ISIS and explore responses thereto, where after some concluding remarks will be made in paragraph 4.

The international community was introduced to the concept of human security with the release of the Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) [31] “under the guidance of Dr. Mahbub ul Haq” [32]. Human security as defined by the Commission on Human Security (CHS) [27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38], aims to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms [39] and human development [40]. It focuses on protecting the fundamental freedoms that are the essence of life, meaning that it protects people from critical and pervasive threats and situations [41]. It employs processes that build on people's strengths and aspirations by creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together provide people with the building blocks for survival, livelihood and dignity.

As already said, ISIS is a Sunni Muslim group and an affiliate of Al-Qaeda that uses brutal tactics such as rape, beheadings, kidnappings, car and suicide bombings, crucifixions and mass executions [13] against Christians, Yezidis, Kurds, Shia Muslims and anyone opposed to its methods, values and ideas [14].

The struggle between Sunni and Shia Muslims originated in the difference in their belief system, as the former believes that the deceased Mohammed could be replaced by an elected individual, and the latter, on the other hand, believes that a family member of Mohammed should succeed him [54]. The selection of a non-family member as the leader of the first caliphate caused a final division between these two branches of Islam [54].

ISIS perceives members of any religion other than Sunni Islam as “infidels” and justifies its conduct by interpreting the Quran radically [55]. They believe that their interpretation should prevail and they will pursue the enforcement of their version even if it means that they should resort to drastic measures. This extreme action of implementing dogmatic, extreme values, measures and beliefs is warranted by the jihad or the “holy war” [56]. In terms of the ISIS programme, “jihad” is “an aspect of a radical, religious ideology that supports terrorism and other acts of criminal violence” [55].

As stated earlier, the continuous conflict within these areas has already resulted in the internal displacement of over 7.6 million Syrians and more than 3.2 million Iraqis [15]. As a result over 4.2 million Syrians [16] and more than 180,000 Iraqis [17] are currently seeking asylum abroad [18, 19]. Human security focuses on the individuals within a state and therefore it can play an important role in promoting and protecting the human rights of “vulnerability and insecurity” refugees [18, 57]. Complications related to this approach can arise, however, as there could be conflict between the interests of refugees on the one hand and the interests of the state and safety of the citizens on the other hand [18]. This specific situation is reflected by the terrorist activities which are occurring in Europe today as ISIS members infiltrate Europe by posing as refugees [58, 59]. In such cases sovereignty and the protection of the interests of the citizens of the state will take precedence [18].

Human security focuses on present and evolving threats to the security, development and well-being of individuals and communities. It is also a long-term solution to the negative effects created by war. Consequently, by identifying the concrete needs of the Syrian and Iraqi population, a human security framework could effectively be implemented to “directly and positively affect the daily lives of these people” [27].

Unlike the use of force, this would have an “instant result that is mainly concerned with the root causes of these threats” [27]. If these insecurities are not eliminated and prevented in their entirety, this failure could have an effect on the long-term stability and infrastructure of Syria as well the international community, as explained by Scott Lassan [60]. Health problems would also continue to persist in this geographical area, as the government is not capable of providing adequate service delivery. Furthermore, education has been affected to such an extent by the continuous conflict that the present-day skills and decisions of the general population have already been negatively affected.

By implementing a human security programme in terms of which the Syrian and Iraqi communities are involved and encouraged to take control of their own lives and decisions, it can be ensured that the feelings of exclusion, oppression and rebelliousness that created these threats are eliminated. Such a programme would identify the needs and vulnerabilities of the people as well as the gaps between local, regional and international responses [27]. It could also “develop early warning mechanisms which are important to mitigate and prevent such threats” [27, 61]. This being said, the people of both Syria and Iraq can be empowered and protected by enhancing the personal, community and political security in these areas.

By implementing mechanisms and strategies that can ensure the protection of human rights, personal security can be protected. Likewise, the instituting of processes and mechanisms that can ensure the elimination and prevention of discrimination and oppression can promote community security. Furthermore, the encouragement of good governance and punishment of wrongful acts by the state can prevent the abuse of state power and as a result enhance political security [28].

The effect of possible interventions on personal, community and political insecurities have been identified by the UN Human Security Unit [28]. With regards to personal security, police and other security officials can be properly trained to deal with such threats. The CHS has identified one possible advantage of such an intervention as being freedom from fear. However, a possible disadvantage is that the shifting of state power could result in instability. A strategy to protect and enhance community security could include demilitarisation, and although security could be established, this could also lead to other community disputes. By assisting and supporting the people in the development of a democratic society, equivalence, participation and non-exclusion could be ensured. The enforcement of a specific political system could result, however, in more tension and rebelliousness by the people, who may not find this kind of governance acceptable. This was exemplified after the US intervention in Iraqi politics during 2003 [62]. The US compelled the Iraqi state to adopt a democratic system by replacing the Sunni President Saddam Hussein with a predominantly Shia administration [63, 64, 65, 66]. This resulted in the oppression and exclusion from the government of Sunni Iraqi people, which ultimately caused tension and aggravated the rebellious behaviour by the Iraqi people [64, 65, 66, 67]. Negative experiences such as the US intervention in Iraq have created strong opposition towards external intervention in the Middle East. In order to avoid bringing about such situations, a human security programme recognizes the importance of participation and input from the local population [28]. In fact, such participation is recognized as being “vital to the successful implementation and sustainability of human security” [28]. It is recognized by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) that the international community has a role to play in safeguarding human security where local attempts fail:

”The concept of human security—including concern for human rights, but broader than that in its scope—has also become an increasingly important element in international law and international relations, increasingly providing a conceptual framework for international action. Although the issue is far from uncontroversial, the concept of security is now increasingly recognized to extend to people as well as to states. It is certainly becoming increasingly clear that the human impact of international actions cannot be regarded as collateral to other actions, but must be a central preoccupation for all concerned. Whether universally popular or not, there is growing recognition worldwide that the protection of human security, including human rights and human dignity, must be one of the fundamental objectives of modern international institutions” [38, 68].

In order to prevent controversy, however, it may be suggested that regional states should first be called upon to act as agents of human security. International states which do not understand the political and social circumstances of a particular state could then intervene only if local and regional assistance to implement human security has failed.

In Syria, state violence coupled with attacks by non-state extremist groups such as ISIS has resulted in human rights violations that “shock the conscience of the human mind”. In response, the international community has been launching airstrikes with the objective of eliminating these threats [22, 23, 24]. Similarly, neighbouring states have been dispatching state armed forces to assist with this mission on the ground [13]. However, the use of force is a short-term response that continues to affect the interests of innocent people [44].

Millions of people are forced to abandon their homes to escape the conflict and its effects [69]. For that reason, a long term response that could be used in response to this conflict would be the implementation of a human security programme [44]. The use of such a programme does not mean that the use of force should be abandoned in totality [29], but instead, as indicated by Kees Homan, that force be used alongside human security as a means of enforcement where it is permissible under international law [29]. This being said, state armed forces can assist in strengthening law and order, for example [29].

A human security programme addresses a variety of insecurities [28] which threaten the “survival, livelihood and dignity of people and communities” [27], and it focuses on eliminating these threats in order that the general population may attain freedom of fear and want [39]. Human security, as a people-centred approach, recognises that the security of people should be a priority [6, 43], and as a result it endeavours to protect refugees by obliging states to protect these asylum seekers [18].

An objective of human security is to empower the people by building the capacity of the government and local institutions to provide services. It also encourages people to make important decisions and to take control of their own lives [27, 28]. Furthermore, the capacity of police and other security forces to deal with such threats is strengthened in order to enable them to protect the people and their communities.

Specifically, with regards to Syria, intervention methods could include disarming and demobilising armed groups. In addition, the people could be assisted to move from accepting authoritarianism in government to insisting on democracy [28]. This transition will address the root causes of the crisis, as it was their exclusion and oppression that resulted in the development of this civil war in the first place.