| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
067562
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2006.
|
| Description |
xxii, 246p.
|
| Series |
The new international relations
|
| Standard Number |
0415332710
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 050585 | 327.101/GUZ 050585 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
050230
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2004.
|
| Description |
vii, 255p.
|
| Standard Number |
0415324106
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 047563 | 327.172/GUZ 047563 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
060153
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
138084
|
|
|
|
|
| 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
103749
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
154736
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This reply to the Symposium on Stefano Guzzini (ed.) The return of geopolitics in Europe?, answers the criticisms by John Agnew, Jeffrey Checkel, Dan Deudney and Jennifer Mitzen. It justifies (1) its specific definition and critique of geopolitics as a theory – and not just a foreign policy strategy; (2) its proposed interpretivist process tracing; (3) the role of mechanisms in constructivist theorizing and foreign policy theory; and (4) its usage of non-Humean causality in the analysis of multiple parallel processes and their interaction. At the same time, it develops the logic of the book’s main mechanism of foreign policy identity crisis reduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
109587
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article seeks to offer a way forward in discussions about the status of securitization theory. In my reading, this debate has been inhibited by the difficulty of finding an appropriate version of 'understanding/explanation' that would be consistent with the meta-theoretical commitments of a post-structuralist theory. By leaving 'explanation' and/or all versions of causality to the positivist other, the Copenhagen School also left its own explanatory status often implicit, or only negatively defined. Instead, the present article claims that the explanatory theory used in securitization research de facto relies on causal mechanisms that are non-positivistically conceived. Using the appropriate methodological literature renders this explanatory status explicit, exposing the theory's non-positivist causality and thus, hopefully, enhancing its empirical theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|