| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Balzacq, Thierry, et al.
(författare)
-
What kind of theory – if any – is securitization?
- 2015
-
Ingår i: International Relations. - : SAGE Publications. - 0047-1178 .- 1741-2862. ; 29:1, s. 96-136
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- One of the great appeals of securitization theory, and a major reason for its success, has been itsusefulness 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 ofwhich concern the nature of securitization theory. In fact, the appropriate methods, the researchpuzzles and type of evidence accepted all derive to a great extent from the kind of theory scholarsbequeath their faith to. This Forum addresses the following questions: What type of theory (ifany) is securitization? How many kinds of theories of securitization do we have? How can thedifferences between theories of securitization be drawn? What is the status of exceptionalismwithin securitization theories, and what difference does it make to their understandings of therelationship between security and politics? Finally, if securitization commands that leaders act nowbefore it is too late, what status has temporality therein? Is temporality enabling securitization toabsorb risk analysis or does it expose its inherent theoretical limits?
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Erskine, Toni, et al.
(författare)
-
Preface
- 2022
-
Ingår i: International Theory. - : Cambridge University Press. - 1752-9719 .- 1752-9727. ; 14:1, s. 117-118
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
-
Foreign Policy Analysis
- 2011
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- A collection of the 53 major journal articles and chapters in Foreign Policy Analysis, 1948-2010.
|
|
| 8. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
A dual history of securitization
- 2015
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This Working Paper provides a dual historisation of ‘securitisation’, i.e. of the origins of the Copenhagen School in terms of its direct world historical context and of the historical origins of the specific bias in our political discourse which is prompted by security discourses. Born almost as a rationalisation of German Ostpolitik, and hence with desecuritisation, the Copenhagen School understood the speech act less as a kind of conspiratorial or elite manipulation than as the manifold processes that give prominence to the discourse of security (the reversal of Clausewitz) in public debate or diminish it, as in the processes of desecuritisation. This means that I see ‘securitisation’ not in the ‘act’ of those ‘speaking’ security, but in the possibly unintended and unconscious de-/mobilisation of the inherent logic, or grammar, of the discourse of security.This begs the question, however, of where the discourse of security would have gained its inherent logic from. It is here where a second necessary historicisation has to take place, not about the context of the theory itself, but about the content of its central concept. The Copenhagen School has been criticised for being basically still too conventional or realist in its reading of security, being connected to exceptional measures, done by foreign-policy elites, etc. But just as the increasing number of security sectors indicates, this is not to be understood as the ‘essence’ of security, but rather as the effect of a historical development in which certain actors have traditionally come to be authorised to talk and effect war and peace in a ‘realist’ way. This implies that, by reifying a historical moment into a general framework of analysis, securitisation theory may indeed help to reproduce such an understanding, although it does not need to. In return, it implies, however, that if a different understanding of security (beyond the raison d’État) appears and becomes shared, the Copenhagen School will also have to adapt. Its conceptualisation is historically bound.
|
|
| 9. |
- Guzzini, Stefano, 1963-
(författare)
-
A História dual da Securitização
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Segurança, Liberdade e Política. - Lisboa : Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. - 9789726713456 ; , s. 15-32
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The chapter ‘A história dual da securitização’ provides a dual historisation of ‘securitisation’, i.e. of the origins of the Copenhagen School in terms of its direct world historical context and of the historical origins of the specific bias in our political discourse which is prompted by security discourses. Born almost as a rationalisation of German Ostpolitik, and hence with desecuritisation, the Copenhagen School understood the speech act less as a kind of conspiratorial or elite manipulation than as the manifold processes that give prominence to the discourse of security (the reversal of Clausewitz) in public debate or diminish it, as in the processes of desecuritisation. This means that I see ‘securitisation’ not in the ‘act’ of those ‘speaking’ security, but in the possibly unintended and unconscious de-/mobilisation of the inherent logic, or grammar, of the discourse of security.This begs the question, however, of where the discourse of security would have gained its inherent logic from. It is here where a second necessary historicisation has to take place, not about the context of the theory itself, but about the content of its central concept. The Copenhagen School has been criticised for being basically still too conventional or realist in its reading of security, being connected to exceptional measures, done by foreign-policy elites, etc. But just as the increasing number of security sectors indicates, this is not to be understood as the ‘essence’ of security, but rather as the effect of a historical development in which certain actors have traditionally come to be authorised to talk and effect war and peace in a ‘realist’ way. This implies that, by reifying a historical moment into a general framework of analysis, securitisation theory may indeed help to reproduce such an understanding, although it does not need to. In return, it implies, however, that if a different understanding of security (beyond the raison d’État) appears and becomes shared, the Copenhagen School will also have to adapt. Its conceptualisation is historically bound.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
