|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Srl | Item |
1 |
ID:
143595
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
Illiberal practices of liberal regimes have been extensively studied by critical security studies. The literature on risk emphasises the idea of imminent dangers and the logic of worst-case scenarios, which eventually unsettle the balance between security and liberty by always favouring the former in its most coercive and exceptional forms. This paper, by drawing on (in)securitization theory, attempts to explain how particular illiberal practices with respect to the control and management of immigration on the fringe of the EU become normalised. It argues that (in)securitization of immigration and illiberal practices are effects of the very functioning of a transnational field of (in)security professionals that are produced through the structural competition between different actors of this field over the definition of security and the appropriate control and management of immigration. In this respect, it uses Greece as a case study and draws on material gathered through interviews with Greek security professionals in Athens, Lesvos, Orestiada, and Alexandroupoli, and analysis of their discourse in dissertations they prepared during their study in police academies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
ID:
138088
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
One of the great appeals of securitization theory, and a major reason for its success, has been its usefulness as a tool for empirical research: an analytic framework capable of practical application. However, the development of securitization has raised several criticisms, the most important of which concern the nature of securitization theory. In fact, the appropriate methods, the research puzzles and type of evidence accepted all derive to a great extent from the kind of theory scholars bequeath their faith to. This Forum addresses the following questions: What type of theory (if any) is securitization? How many kinds of theories of securitization do we have? How can the differences between theories of securitization be drawn? What is the status of exceptionalism within securitization theories, and what difference does it make to their understandings of the relationship between security and politics? Finally, if securitization commands that leaders act now before it is too late, what status has temporality therein? Is temporality enabling securitization to absorb risk analysis or does it expose its inherent theoretical limits?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
ID:
083435
|
|
|
Publication |
2008.
|
Summary/Abstract |
The transformation of Saharan populations into an object of global security is analysed as a specific instance of security's expansion globally, as well as of its merger with development, understood as a side-effect of the former. It is shown that the search for threats in the Sahara, and the establishment of surveillance apparatuses, is a precondition for the detection and discursive production of these threats. Security, through its production of knowledge, manages to objectify what had hitherto constituted a borderland of knowledge and government. The securitization of the Sahara and its populations creates a field of intervention for diverse agents of security and development. However, it does so not as part of a coherent global regime of control, but on its own specific and random terms, within a political economy of danger that is the product of discursive and material struggles. The securitization of the Sahara, it is argued, should be seen as actually existing security - that is, a complex of security practices serving diverse interests, with contradictory and open-ended outcomes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
ID:
149483
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
This article assesses the role of the audience in securitization theory. The main argument is that in order to accurately capture the role of the securitization audience, it must be theorized as an active agent, capable of having a meaningful effect on the intersubjective construction of security values. Through a meta-synthesis of 32 empirical studies of securitization, this article focuses on two central questions: (1) Who is the audience? (2) How does the audience engage in the construction of security? When assessed against the theoretical works on securitization, this analysis reveals that the manner in which the audience is defined and characterized within securitization theory differs with the empirical literature that investigates securitization processes. Where the empirical literature suggests securitization is a highly intersubjective process involving active audiences, securitization theory characterizes audiences as agents without agency, thereby marginalizing the theory’s intersubjective nature. This article sketches a new characterization of the securitization audience and outlines a framework for securitizing actor–audience interaction that better accounts for securitization theory’s linguistic and intersubjective character, addresses this theoretical/empirical conflict, and improves our understanding of how groups select and justify security priorities and costly security policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
ID:
067372
|
|
|
6 |
ID:
171944
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
This article evaluates the Turkish state’s relations with the Alevi community through a securitization theory framework. It first examines the issue in its historical context, comparing Kemalist and more recent policies, and highlights that despite the ideological differences between the previous governments and the current AKP government, for Alevis much has remained the same. It then turns to the securitization of the Alevis by successive regimes, and demonstrates that the period of de-securitization begun under the AKP did not end the practice, and that political expedience led to the issue’s re-securitization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
ID:
134074
|
|
|
Publication |
2014.
|
Summary/Abstract |
In the past 30 years, organized crime (OC) has shifted from being an issue of little, or no concern, to being considered one of the key security threats facing the European Union (EU), the economic and political fabric of its society and its citizens. The purpose of this article is to understand how OC has come to be understood as one of the major security threats in the EU, by applying different lenses of Securitization Theory (ST). More specifically, the research question guiding this article is whether applying different ST approaches can lead us to draw differing conclusions as to whether OC has been successfully securitized in the EU. Building on the recent literature that argues that this theoretical framework has branched out into different approaches, this article wishes to contrast two alternative views of how a security problem comes into being, in order to verify whether different approaches can lead to diverging conclusions regarding the same phenomenon. The purpose of this exercise is to contribute to the further development of ST by pointing out that the choice in approach bears direct consequences on reaching a conclusion regarding the successful character of a securitization process. Starting from a reflection on ST, the article proceeds with applying a "linguistic approach" to the case study, which it then contrasts with a "sociological approach". The article proposes that although the application of a "linguistic approach" seems to indicate that OC has become securitized in the EU, it also overlooks a number of elements, which the "sociological approach" renders visible and which lead us to refute the initial conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
ID:
149479
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
While international relations has increasingly begun to recognize the political salience of Indigenous peoples, the related field of security studies has not significantly incorporated Indigenous peoples either theoretically or empirically. This article helps to address this gap by comparing two Arctic Indigenous peoples – Inuit in Canada and Sámi in Norway – as ‘securitizing actors’ within their respective states. It examines how organizations representing Inuit and Sámi each articulate the meaning of security in the circumpolar Arctic region. It finds that Inuit representatives have framed environmental and social challenges as security issues, identifying a conception of Arctic security that emphasizes environmental protection, preservation of cultural identity, and maintenance of Indigenous political autonomy. While there are some similarities between the two, Sámi generally do not employ securitizing language to discuss environmental and social issues, rarely characterizing them as existential issues threatening their survival or wellbeing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
ID:
189466
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the technopolitics of prevention in postwar Guatemala. In the 2010s, experts and policymakers shifted security governance in Central America’s most populous country towards anticipation. Against the background of rising gang violence, they implemented a set of sociopolitical and techno-material measures – based on the latest crime-control technologies, new policing strategies and urban design methods – in Guatemala’s most violent municipalities. The stated goals were to reconstruct state sovereignty and to improve public security by strengthening community resilience and inducing positive behavioural change in ‘at-risk’ citizens. Zooming in on the case of Villa Nueva, the article examines the emergence and effects of Guatemala’s ‘prevention assemblage’. It demonstrates that this technopolitical project has failed, as prevention turned into a new layer of control that shifted responsibility to local communities, further securitized urban spaces and populations, and reproduced exclusionary and repressive security governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
ID:
191955
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
This paper offers a multi-dimensional analysis of the ways and extent to which the US president and UK prime minister have securitized the Covid-19 pandemic in their public speeches. This assessment rests on, and illustrates the merits of, both an overdue theoretical consolidation of Securitization Theory’s (ST) conceptualization of securitizing language, and a new methodological blueprint for the study of ‘securitizing semantic repertoire’. Comparing and contrasting the two leaders’ respective securitizing semantic repertoires adopted in the early months of the coronavirus outbreak shows that securitizing language, while very limited, has been more intense in the UK, whose repertoire was structured by a biopolitical imperative to ‘save lives’ in contrast to the US repertoire centred on the ‘war’ metaphor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
ID:
138341
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
Debate on the ‘securitization’ of aid and international development since 9/11 has been anchored in two key claims: that the phenomenon has been driven and imposed by western governments and that this is wholly unwelcome and deleterious for those in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world. This article challenges both of these assumptions by demonstrating how a range of African regimes have not only benefited from this dispensation but have also actively encouraged and shaped it, even incorporating it into their own militarized state-building projects. Drawing on the cases of Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda and Rwanda—four semi-authoritarian polities which have been sustained by the securitization trend—we argue that these developments have not been an accidental by-product of the global ‘war on terror’. Instead, we contend, they have been the result of a deliberate set of choices and policy decisions by these African governments as part of a broader ‘illiberal state-building’ agenda. In delineating this argument we outline four major strategies employed by these regimes in this regard: ‘playing the proxy’; simultaneous ‘socialization’ of development policy and ‘privatization’ of security affairs; making donors complicit in de facto regional security arrangements; and constructing regime ‘enemies’ as broader, international threats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
ID:
106195
|
|
|
Publication |
2011.
|
Summary/Abstract |
Challenging the representations of the securitization of migration and disease as a productive broadening of security studies or as a troubling shift associated with recent developments in international politics, this article explores how the regulation of human movement and contagious disease functions to reproduce the international/domestic foundation of the nation-state system and to support the moral basis of exclusion from individual states. Drawing on the practices of border and health regulation in Canada, and specifically through the technology of insurance, the article explores how health and immigration bureaucracies and private insurance corporations reproduce the international realm as anarchic, disordered, and dangerous through the representation of certain regions and peoples as unhealthy, irrational, and dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
ID:
105944
|
|
|
Publication |
2011.
|
Summary/Abstract |
While security and finance are certainly different social spheres, the fact that we can detect similar shifts in both points to the existence of something that precedes these 'realities'. If finance and security are said to be different, intertwined and related, the question then arises as to what it is that constitutes the differences and similarities between them. This article argues that further inquiry into the boundary between the two leads us to understand processes of securitization and financialization as constitutive processes by which actors, behaviours, practices or communications are considered to be economic or securitized. To capture processes of financialization, the article draws on systems theory in general and the concept of functional differentiation in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
ID:
106462
|
|
|
Publication |
2011.
|
Summary/Abstract |
Since the late 1980s, the scope of security policy has widened dramatically to encompass a wide range of 'non-traditional' threats. Southeast Asian states have superficially appeared to embrace this trend, broadening their security discourse considerably. However, they are also often criticized for failing to translate this discursive shift into concrete regional cooperation to tackle these new threats. This article critiques the dominant theoretical framework used to explore the widening of states' security agendas - the Copenhagen School's 'securitization' approach - as unable to account for this gap due to its fixation on security discourse rather than practice. Drawing on state theory and insights from critical political economy, the article argues that the scope of regional security policy is better accounted for by the distinctive nature of state-society relations within Southeast Asia. The argument is advanced using case studies of Southeast Asian states' policies toward Burma, environmental degradation, and border conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
ID:
061466
|
|
|
Publication |
Jan-Mar 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
ID:
178182
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
Because women are assumed to be nonviolent, their participation in militant groups can humanize organizations and legitimize rebellion. But gender beliefs are deeply engrained, and consequently women’s involvement can also generate resistance. This article explores how militants navigate this tension through their political visuals, specifically analyzing images of ‘armed mothers’ across six diverse conflicts. Leveraging life-giving as the ‘natural’ role for women, these images signal violent disruption of everyday life and authorize political violence in response. But they also stress the temporariness of gender-role expansion, promising and preserving a ‘return to normal’. Militant groups contextualize, justify, and humanize violent struggle through these images even in cases where women rarely participate on the front lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
ID:
161268
|
|
|
18 |
ID:
185227
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
In recent years, governments have considered how to respond to “disinformation.” However, there is little academic literature on Canada’s response in the area of security and foreign policy. This paper addresses this gap by analyzing how and why Canadian government foreign and security actors have “securitized” foreign disinformation. It argues that, since 2014, they have increased awareness about disinformation and transformed it into a matter of “security” through rhetoric and discursive framing, as well as stated policy intentions and actions. This has occurred in response to perceived threats, but without coherent policy. The findings suggest that challenges are linked to persistent difficulties in defining and understanding disinformation. The result has been fragmented actions, some of which may legitimate actions that deviate from “normal political processes.” The implications are that definitional challenges need to be addressed, the role of security actors assessed, and a clearly articulated and holistic strategy drawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
ID:
140514
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
In December 2010, HarassMap was launched as a Cairo-based interactive online mapping interface for reporting and mapping incidents of sexual harassment anonymously and in real time, in Egypt. The project’s use of spatial information technologies for crowdmapping sexual harassment raises important questions about the use of crowdsourced mapping as a technique of global human security governance, as well as the techno-politics of interpreting and representing spaces of gendered security and insecurity in Egypt’s urban streetscape. By recoding Egypt’s urban landscape into spaces subordinated to the visual cartography of the project’s crowdsourced data, HarassMap obscures the complex assemblage that it draws together as the differentially open space of the Egyptian street – spaces that are territorialized and deterritorialized for authoritarian control, state violence, revolt, rape, new solidarities, gender reversals, sectarian tensions, and class-based mobilization. What is at stake in my analysis is the plasticity of victimage: to what extent can attempts to ‘empower’ women be pursued at the microlevel without amplifying the similarly imperial techniques of objectifying them as resources used to justify other forms of state violence? The question requires taking seriously the practices of mapping and targeting as an interface for securing public space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
ID:
052584
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|