| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
085421
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyses the emerging discourse on 'climate security' and investigates whether and how attempts to consider environmental problems as security issues are transforming security practices. Attempts to broaden the security agenda have been deemed as spreading the confrontational logic of security-which, within international relations, is traditionally associated with the exceptional decision that brings into existence the logic of war-into sectors from which it had been excluded. This problematic development has been described as 'securitization'. This article argues that this perspective does not consider whether and how by securitizing nontraditional sectors, alternative security logics are evoked and practices associated with securitization are challenged and transformed. The securitization of the environment, it is argued, is transforming existing security practices and provisions. This process is part of broader re-articulation of the spaces in which a logic of security based on emergency and contingency is legitimated and those in which a logic of prevention and management prevails. It implies new roles for security actors and different means to provide security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
159164
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the early 2000s, energy security has appeared frequently in Chinese policy statements. The focus is on security of supply, even if the discourse is becoming more attentive to other dimensions, such as environmental sustainability. Securitization theory can shed light on this specific threat construction and its implications for China and Chinese foreign policy. Applying securitization theory and reviewing existing debates, I show how the construction of an external threat and a focus on securing access to oil downplay other vulnerabilities and contribute to the perception among China's neighbors and others of a Chinese threat, despite new Chinese security discourses to the contrary. I argue that two factors contribute to this threat construction and its resilience: the role of national oil companies and the limited mobilizing power of environmental and climate security discourses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|