| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article offers a constructive critique of the Copenhagen School's 'securitization' framework by applying it in an analysis of the role of international organizations seeking to counter the trafficking of narcotics and persons in post-Soviet Central Asia. The study discovers common and divergent motivations that explain international attempts and failures to securitize. In the case of human trafficking, significant clashes created obstacles to international efforts. In both cases, international organizations advanced their agendas through the language of security, but also through institutional changes and increased resource allocation. These processes led to the adoption of mostly traditional security strategies. The analysis concludes that although the securitization framework makes significant contributions as an analytical tool, its definition is too vague and it is too narrow in focus. 'Security dichotomies' need to be taken into account in a comprehensive analysis of why international attempts to securitize issues sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. The influence of rhetoric on the development of policy should also be taken into account if the securitization framework is to provide a complete understanding of the issues or be useful for policymakers.
|