Human security is a very vague concept that admits different definitions. Most people will agree on the fact that its concern is the welfare of individuals, of the people rather than the State. Nevertheless, the absence of a more precise definition has consequences: everyone supports human security, because it is noble, just like everyone is for sustainable development. However, nobody really knows what underlies this concept which therefore makes it quite inefficient. On the other hand, two narrower subspaces of human security can be observed: freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Living a life free from want is connected with the idea of economic and social safety, development, and mostly non-violent threats to human life. On the other hand, freedom from fear is concerned with violent threats and institutional guarantees, like civil wars, life threatening situations and human rights breaches. Even though the concept of human security might lack precision and effectiveness, it has had the effect of a certain paradigm shift; from a State-centred paradigm, where citizens have to support the legitimacy and sovereignty of the State, which is then recognised by other States, to a situation where the role of the State is to protect and support the citizen and people it draws its legitimacy from. This is a central achievement of the human security concept; the needs in terms of security for individuals come first, before the State. It is also a way of shifting from a national point of view to a more transnational approach of issues that go past borders. Then the human security concept provides us with a new way of understanding international involvement and participation in operations that seek to improve or establish human security, also called peacekeeping or humanitarian interventions. The usual defiance between military and relief workers has counterproductive effects, when they should work together. A more intertwined organisation, where soldiers and