| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
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.
|