oncrete objectives and offers a framework of analysis that directly helps in promoting human rights standards and take new actions to counter new threats. Although human security aims at promoting and protecting individual rights, particularly when states are unwilling or unable to do so, there are criticisms it faces in regard to the extent to which these rights are actually protected. Howard-Hassman (2012) has argued that the human security discourse has the potential to inadvertently undermine the international human rights framework. For instance, R2P can allow for powerful countries to invade countries under the guise of humanitarian intervention. This is all at the expense of human protection and is justified under the pretext of ‘human security’. An example includes Libya, where military intervention was used in response to Gaddafi’s planned air strikes upon civilians (Kaldor, 2011). However, “having crippled Libyan air capabilities” NATO continued to aim at Gaddafi’s compound (Modeme, 2012) leading to critics saying that “the boundaries between protecting civilians and pursuing regime change became increasingly blurred” (Dembinski and Reinold, 2011). Though NATO won, it left the country in turmoil with no government and depriving Libyans of protection. Reports suggest that NATO was responsible for twice the amount of civilian deaths as Gaddafi (Ostroumova, 2012) suggesting how R2P can be more of a threat rather than serving as a protector. Human security was also used as a justification of the Iraq War (a now internationally criticised intervention). Mentan (2014) argues that “the association of human security with Western imperialism and overzealous military intervention (e.g. Iraq and arguably Libya) has provoked international apprehension towards further implementing it”. Therefore, powerful states inconsistency in its application of human security has rendered the practice ineffective as it deprives citizens of protection. This highlights how human security can be used >