The E-mail Address es field is required. Please enter recipient e-mail address es. The E-mail Address es you entered is are not in a valid format. Please re-enter recipient e-mail address es.
You may send this item to up to five recipients. The name field is required. Please enter your name. The E-mail message field is required.
Please enter the message. Please verify that you are not a robot. Would you also like to submit a review for this item? You already recently rated this item. Your rating has been recorded. Write a review Rate this item: 1 2 3 4 5. Preview this item Preview this item. Securitization and desecuritization. Discusses the dynamics of securitization in the military, political, economic, and environmental sectors.
Emmers, Ralf. Edited by Alan Collins, — Oxford: Oxford University Press, A straightforward introduction to securitization theory. Provides examples on how to apply securitization theory empirically, and is particularly suited for students on the undergraduate and early graduate level with little or no prior knowledge of the Copenhagen school and securitization theory. Huysmans, Jef. DOI: Details the development of the Copenhagen school and critically discusses the idea of securitization as a speech act that follows a specific grammar.
McDonald, Matt. Outlines the conceptual framework of securitization theory, and points out some limits of the approach by arguing that its definition of securitization is too narrowly conceived. This is a good place to start for those interested in engaging debates about the nature and rhetorical structure of securitization as a speech act.
Peoples, Columba, and Nick Vaughan-Williams. Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. An up-to-date text that introduces the main tenets of the Copenhagen school in a systematic fashion.
It also raises some points of critique, which makes it a particularly useful and rewarding read for advanced undergraduate and graduate students in search of an overview of the main debates and issues on securitization.
Edited by Ronnie Lipschutz, 46— New York: Columbia University Press, The first outline of the idea of securitization as a speech act. The chapter also discusses normative implications of securitizing issues. Williams, Michael C. Provides an assessment of the foundations of this approach and its limitations, and sketches its significance for broader areas of international relations theory.
Buzan, People, States, and Fear , , p. Survival might sound overly dramatic but it is, in fact, the survival of the unit as a basic political unit — a sovereign state — that is the key. The logic here is simple.
It is all well and good to talk about this or that aspect of security but the question of existence of the state — the question of whether the state is to be or not to be — must be addressed first. And if there are issues that impinge on this question, they have to be addressed. Only then can other questions be raised, for if there is no state, there would be no point in raising them.
This is expressed most clearly perhaps in Clausewitz. To enter a war is a political decision, but once in, one has to play according to the grammar of war , not politics, which would mean playing less well and losing the political aim, as well.
Force … is thus the means of war; to impose our will on the enemy is its object [ Zweck ]. To secure that object [ Zweck ] we must render the enemy powerless; and that, in theory, is the true aim [ Ziel ] of warfare. That aim takes the place of the object, discarding it as something not actually part of war itself. Clausewitz, On War [], Chapter 1, Section 2. What is important to note here is that it is not the use of military means that characterise war. It is a historical fact that military means have been associated with war.
But the connection between military means and war is just that, historical. It is not a logical connection. Or in other words it is not the use of military means that characterise war. When this happens, however, the structure of the game is still derived from the most classical of classical cases: war. As I have suggested above, security problems are developments that threaten the sovereignty or independence of a state in a particularly rapid or dramatic fashion, and deprive it of the capacity to manage by itself.
This, in turn, undercuts the political order. Such a threat must therefore be met with the mobilization of the maximum effort. Power holders can always try to use the instrument of securitization of an issue to gain control over it.
By definition, something is a security problem when the elites declare it to be so. What then is security? Security is a speech act. Specifically, when the term security is used, it does not refer to anything. When we use the term apple, it refers to something, some apple regardless of whether it is real or imaginary, ripe or raw, green or red, etc.
But not with security. Here, the utterance itself is the act. Here, Waever is drawing on J. Austin and clarifies in a footnote that security is an illocutionary act. To determine what illocutionary act is so performed we must determine in what way we are using the locution: asking or answering a question; giving some information or an assurance or a warning; announcing a verdict or an intention; pronouncing sentence; making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism; making an identification or giving a description; and the numerous like.
Saying something will often, or even normally, produce certain consequential effects upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of the audience, or of the speaker, or of other persons: and it may be done with the design, intention, or purpose of producing them; … We shall call the performance of an act of this kind the performance of a perlocutionary act. The implication here is the the primarity reality is the act, the utterance, and not something that is pre-given.
This means that a problem would become a security issue only when it is defined as such by the power holders. To critique security, as is usually done, in terms of elite or class interests, implying that authentic security lies elsewhere, i. These attempts have failed.
Another assumption underlying traditional analyses whether conservative or critical is that security is a positive value to be maximised. The idea being that more security is better.
Implying that insecurity is the absence of security and thus a bad situation to be in. But security and insecurity are not binaries. Insecurity is a situation with a security problem and no response. Both conditions share the security problematique. Consequently, transcending a security problem by politicizing it cannot happen through thematization in security terms, only away from such terms.
This idea, that we cannot transcend security issues thinking through them but by thinking away from them, i. Sections which I will not summarize. We do not find much work aimed at de-securitizing politics which, I suspect, would be more effective than securitizing problems. Carl von Clausewitz, On War , trans. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations , trans.
Anscombe New York: Macmillan, Richard H. I am a chronic procrastinator.
0コメント