Item Details
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:1044Hits:19650453Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

In Basket
  Journal Article   Journal Article
 

ID105955
Title ProperDesecuritizing frontier security in China
Other Title Informationbeyond the positive and negative debate
LanguageENG
AuthorCui, Shunji ;  Li, Jia
Publication2011.
Summary / Abstract (Note)Should 'security' or 'securitization' be accorded positive or negative value? The Copenhagen School prefers desecuritization (positive value) to securitization (negative value). By examining securitization and desecuritization processes in China's approach to frontier security, the Copenhagen School argues that, in general, a strategy of desecuritization has proved effective. However, that does not mean that desecuritization should be seen as inherently positive; indeed, China's desecuritization strategy still encounters problems. To build conditions for a lasting frontier security, it is necessary to go beyond the current state-centric national security discourse and to give more attention to the societal security of the frontier people, their identity and culture. Thus, it is suggested in this article that frontier security studies should transcend 'positive-negative' debates and focus more on the 'referent object' of security: who and what we really want to secure and the means by which these objectives can be achieved.
`In' analytical NoteCooperation and Conflict Vol. 46, No. 2; Jun 2011: p.144-165
Journal SourceCooperation and Conflict Vol. 46, No. 2; Jun 2011: p.144-165
Key WordsDesecuritization ;  Frontier Security in China ;  Positive Versus Negative Value ;  Securitization