Securitization (international relations)

Last updated

Securitization in international relations and national politics is the process of state actors transforming subjects from regular political issues into matters of "security": thus enabling extraordinary means to be used in the name of security. [1] Issues that become securitized do not necessarily represent issues that are essential to the objective survival of a state, but rather represent issues where someone was successful in constructing an issue into an existential problem. [2]

Contents

Securitization theorists assert that successfully securitized subjects receive disproportionate amounts of attention and resources compared to unsuccessfully securitized subjects causing more human damage. A common example used by theorists is how terrorism is a top priority in security discussions, even though people are much more likely to be killed by automobiles or preventable diseases than from terrorism. Securitization studies aims to understand "who securitizes (securitizing actor), on what issues (threats), for whom (referent object), why, with what results, and not least, under what conditions." [3]

Origin

Within international relations, the concept is connected with the Copenhagen School and is seen as a synthesis of constructivist and classical political realism in its approach. [4] The term was coined by Ole Wæver in 1993, but seems to have become commonplace, at least within constructivist studies of international relations.[ citation needed ]

Definition

Securitization begins with a speech act concerning a particular threat, by an authoritative national leader, institution, or party. The speech act attempts to shift the threat from normal politics into a security concern, thereby legitimating extraordinary measures to contain the threat. [5]

Securitization is a process-oriented conception of security, which stands in contrast to materialist approaches of classical security studies. Classical approaches of security focus on the material dispositions of the threat including distribution of power, military capabilities, and polarity, whereas securitization examines how a certain issue is transformed by an actor into a matter of security in order to allow for the use of extraordinary measures.[ citation needed ]

Moreover, the securitization act, to be successful, must be accepted by the audience, regardless of the subject matter being a real threat. As Thierry Braspenning-Balzacq puts it: "securitization is a rule-governed practice, the success of which does not necessarily depend on the existence of a real threat, but on the discursive ability to effectively endow a development with such a specific complexion". [6] The audience may take several forms including technical, bureaucratic, public, and policymaking, and different audiences can perform different functions by accepting a securitization, as has been explored by Roe. [7]

As a process

All securitization acts involve four components:

That a given subject is securitized does not necessarily mean that the subject is of objective essence for the survival of a given state, but means merely that someone has successfully constructed something as an existential problem. However, Uriel Abulof argues that empirical studies on securitization have been "insufficiently attentive to societies engulfed in profound existential uncertainty about their own survival." Taking Israel's "demographic demon" as a case in point, Abulof suggests that such societies are immersed in "deep securitization", whereby "widespread public discourses explicitly frame threats as probable, protracted, and endangering the very existence of the nation/state." [8] Principally, anyone can succeed in constructing something as a security problem through speech acts. The ability to effectively securitize a given subject is, however, highly dependent on both the status of a given actor and whether similar issues are generally perceived to be security threats.[ citation needed ]

Effects on society

Securitization theorists argue that a subject that has been successfully securitized will receive disproportionate attention and resources in comparison with subjects that have not been securitized, even when these other subjects actually cause more harm.

traffic incidents cause on average 150,000 fatalities a year in 56 states ... people tend to accept this as a mere fact and do not securitize this by demanding extraordinary measures. It is dealt with as a concern for ordinary politics and legal regulations. There is a tendency to individualize the casualties ... Terrorist attacks caused in the years 1994 to 2004 worldwide average 5,312 fatalities per year. That is less than 5% of the numbers of persons killed annually in traffic accidents in UNECE countries alone. Nevertheless, it is a top priority in security discourses. [9]

If a subject is successfully securitized, then it is possible to legitimize extraordinary means to solve a perceived problem. This could include declaring a state of emergency or martial law, mobilizing the military or attacking another country. Furthermore, if something is successfully labelled as a security problem, then the subject can be considered to be an illegitimate subject for political or academic debate. According to an overview of the field by Roe, securitization theorists tend to treat securitization as a negative process that undermines democratic processes and diminishes necessary scrutiny that would otherwise be focused on political elites. [10]

Affected sectors

In Security: A New Framework for Analysis , Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde work with five political sectors in which a securitization could take place:

However, a securitization could easily involve more than one of these sectors. In the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, one could say that the conflict was securitized militarily; weapons of mass destruction was one reason for the invasion. However, the war was also securitized as a societal problem; human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was mentioned in the public rationale.[ citation needed ]

Another example for securitized sectors are immigration [11] and refugee [12] [13] issues. Concerns of terrorist infiltration are regularly cited as grounds for the tight control of borders. As it is easier to securitize an issue following the September 11 attacks, this concern for safety and security has taken attention away from the economic factors that have always been at play in international migration. In addition, in migrants' countries of origin, diaspora, emigration, and citizenship issues can be securitized. [14]

As a tactic

Since securitized subjects can receive a disproportionate amount of attention and resources compared to unsuccessfully securitized subjects, some political strategists suggest that existing public policy issues can find more clout and attention among the public if advocates on these subjects succeed in securitizing them.[ citation needed ]

For example, theorists suggest that advocates of space exploration could achieve more success by convincing state actors of the merits of their proposals around the rubric of security rather than science: that space exploration could be framed around how it protects humanity from looming existential threats such as meteorites, rather than around how it helps advance scientific knowledge.[ citation needed ]

The existential threat of climate change is another example of an issue that is beginning to become securitized, for example by the trend to declare a climate change emergency. Though as of 2020, in the opinion of Anatol Lieven, the threat of global warming has not been securitized anywhere near as much as it needs to in order to trigger the substantial changes in government policy needed to give the world a chance to hit the IPCC 1.5 °C target. Lieven argues that securitisation would be especially helpful with climate change as it would enable more military experts to speak out on the subject, with military officers being the one type of expert that conservatives tend to widely respect. [5] On the other hand, in a paper published by the Transnational Institute Nick Buxton argues that "framing the climate crisis as a security issue is deeply problematic as it ultimately reinforces a militarised approach to climate change that is likely to deepen the injustices for those most affected by the unfolding crisis. The danger of security solutions is that, by definition, they seek to secure what exists–an unjust status quo." [15]

Criticism

Liberal scholars such as Daniel Deudney have criticised securitization as being too liable to unleash the emotive power of nationalism in unhelpful ways. [16] Even professors who advocate securitization for issues such as climate change, such as Anatol Lieven, agree that securitizing an issue can cause an overreaction by state actors, for example with the war on terror and even more so with the "war" on drugs and crime. [5] In a 2009 report, public policy analyst Ben Hayes warns that the true beneficiaries from securitization are not general populations, but corporations: He argues that the arms and security companies lobby for a securitised agenda in the corridors of power in Brussels and Washington and subsequently win contracts to implement militarised security policies. [17] Regarding the securitization of migration, researcher Ainhoa Ruiz Benedicto warns of the adverse effects for forcibly displaced persons: "In this context of securitisation of border regions, population movement is understood and treated as a suspicious activity that needs to be controlled, monitored and registered, while the migration of often forcibly displaced people and refugees is seen as a security threat that must be intercepted." [18]

In his book The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression , A. Dirk Moses argues that securitization, not racism, is at the root of most genocides and similar atrocities. [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Security</span> Degree of resistance to, or protection from, harm

Security is protection from, or resilience against, potential harm. Beneficiaries of security may be persons and social groups, objects and institutions, ecosystems, or any other entity or phenomenon vulnerable to unwanted change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National security</span> Security and defence of a nation state

National security, or national defence, is the security and defence of a sovereign state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which is regarded as a duty of government. Originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security is widely understood to include also non-military dimensions, such as the security from terrorism, minimization of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, and cyber-security. Similarly, national security risks include, in addition to the actions of other nation states, action by violent non-state actors, by narcotic cartels, organized crime, by multinational corporations, and also the effects of natural disasters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International security</span> Measures taken by states and international organizations to ensure mutual safety and survival

International security is a term which refers to the measures taken by states and international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena.

Environmental security examines threats posed by environmental events and trends to individuals, communities or nations. It may focus on the impact of human conflict and international relations on the environment, or on how environmental problems cross state borders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barry Buzan</span> British professor of international relations

Barry Gordon Buzan, FBA, FAcSS is a British political scientist. He is an Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and a honorary professor at the University of Copenhagen and Jilin University. Until 2012 he was Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at the LSE. Buzan sketched the Regional Security Complex Theory and is therefore together with Ole Wæver a central figure of the Copenhagen School.

Ole Wæver is a professor of international relations at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. He has published extensively in the field of international relations, and is one of the main architects of the Copenhagen School in International Relations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anatol Lieven</span> British author and political analyst

Anatol Lieven is a British author, journalist, and policy analyst. He is currently a visiting professor at King's College London and senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Maritime security is an umbrella term informed to classify issues in the maritime domain that are often related to national security, marine environment, economic development, and human security. This includes the world's oceans but also regional seas, territorial waters, rivers and ports, where seas act as a “stage for geopolitical power projection, interstate warfare or militarized disputes, as a source of specific threats such as piracy, or as a connector between states that enables various phenomena from colonialism to globalization”. The theoretical concept of maritime security has evolved from a narrow perspective of national naval power projection towards a buzzword that incorporates many interconnected sub-fields. The definition of the term maritime security varies and while no internationally agreed definition exists, the term has often been used to describe both existing, and new regional and international challenges to the maritime domain. The buzzword character enables international actors to discuss these new challenges without the need to define every potentially contested aspect of it. Maritime security is of increasing concern to the global shipping industry, where there are a wide range of security threats and challenges. Some of the practical issues clustered under the term of maritime security include crimes such as piracy, armed robbery at sea, trafficking of people and illicit goods, illegal fishing or marine pollution. War, warlike activity, maritime terrorism and interstate rivalry are also maritime security concerns.

The Copenhagen School of security studies is a school of academic thought with its origins in international relations theorist Barry Buzan's book People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations, first published in 1983. The School places particular emphasis on the non-military aspects of security, representing a shift away from traditional security studies. Theorists associated with the school include Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. Many of the school's members worked at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, from which its name originates.

Jacobus Hubertus "Jaap" de Wilde is a Dutch academic. A native of Zuidlaren, he has been a Professor of International Relations and Security Studies at the University of Groningen since 2007. He headed the department of International Relations between 2008 and 2012. From 2001 to 2007 he was professor in European Security Studies at the Department of Political Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, and from 1995–2007 he was senior research fellow in European Studies and IR Theory at the Centre for European Studies (CES), University of Twente. From 1993–1995 he worked at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI).

<i>Security Dialogue</i> Academic journal

Security Dialogue is a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes scholarly articles which combine contemporary theoretical analysis with challenges to public policy across a wide-ranging field of security studies. The journal is owned by the Peace Research Institute Oslo which also hosts the editorial office. As of 1 October 2015 Mark B. Salter is the editor-in-chief. Marit Moe-Pryce has been the managing editor of the journal since 2004. Current associate editors are Emily Gilbert, Jairus V. Grove, Jana Hönke, Doerthe Rosenow, Anna Stavrianakis, and Maria Stern.

<i>Security: A New Framework for Analysis</i>

Security: A New Framework for Analysis is a book by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde. It is considered to be the leading text outlining the views of the Copenhagen School of security studies. The work addresses two important conceptual developments: Buzan's notion of sectoral analysis and Ole Wæver's concept of 'securitization'. The book advocates for an intersubjective conceptualization of security, positing that the understanding of security should be broadened beyond its traditional scope. It contends that security should encompass a wider array of issues, such as environmental threats and challenges to societal identities.

Societal security is a concept developed by the Copenhagen School of security studies that focuses on the ability of a society to persist in its essential character. It was developed in 1990s in the context of the end of the Cold War and moves towards further integration in the European Union. This paradigm de-emphasizes the role of state power in guaranteeing security by confronting threats, highlighting instead questions of community identity and social dynamics.

<i>The European Security Order Recast</i>

The European Security Order Recast: Scenarios for the Post-Cold War Era was a 1990 international relations book by Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup, Pierre Lemaitre, Elzbieta Tromer and Ole Waever. The book focused on structural transformations in European security at the end of the Cold War and argues that concerns about traditional military security would decrease and that the issue of societal security would become more important in the future. The work is considered to be belong to the Copenhagen School of security studies.

Regional security complex theory (RSCT) is a theory of international relations developed by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver and advanced in their 2003 work Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Buzan and Wæver are perhaps best known as the key figures behind the influential Copenhagen School of security studies, in which the main principle is examining security as a social construct (see also securitization and constructivism).

International political sociology (IPS) is an interdisciplinary field and set of approaches at the crossroads of international relations theory and other disciplines such as sociology, geography and anthropology. It is structured around initiatives such as the journal International Political Sociology and the network Doingips, as well as scholars such as Didier Bigo, Anastassia Tsoukala, Ayse Ceyhan or Elspeth Guild.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Feminist security studies</span>

Feminist security studies is a subdiscipline of security studies that draws attention to gendered dimensions of security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amitav Acharya</span> Indian-born Canadian scholar and author (born 1962)

Amitav Acharya is a scholar and author, who is Distinguished Professor of International Relations at American University, Washington, D.C., where he holds the UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance at the School of International Service, and serves as the chair of the ASEAN Studies Initiative. Acharya has expertise in and has made contributions to a wide range of topics in International Relations, including constructivism, ASEAN and Asian regionalism, and Global International Relations. He became the first non-Western President of the International Studies Association when he was elected to the post for 2014–15.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate security</span> Environmental aspect of geopolitics

Climate security is a political and policy framework that looks at the impacts of climate on security. Climate security often refers to the national and international security risks induced, directly or indirectly, by changes in climate patterns. It is a concept that summons the idea that climate-related change amplifies existing risks in society that endangers the security of humans, ecosystems, economy, infrastructure and societies. Climate-related security risks have far-reaching implications for the way the world manages peace and security. Climate actions to adapt and mitigate impacts can also have a negative effect on human security if mishandled.

<i>Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran</i> 2013 book by Alam Saleh

Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran is a 2013 book by Alam Saleh in which the author examines inter-ethnic tension and the politicization of ethnic identity in Iran. He suggests that problems with ethnicity and nationality in Iran, as in other countries of the Middle East, has not been so much the result of ethnic identity formation, but the product of the securitization of ethnic issues. The book has received positive reviews in the Middle East Journal, Review of Middle East Studies, the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, and Nations and Nationalism.

References

  1. ↑ Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), p. 25.
  2. ↑ Arcudi, Giovanni (2006). "La sécurité entre permanence et changement". Relations Internationales. 125 (1): 97–109. doi: 10.3917/ri.125.0097 .
  3. ↑ Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), p. 32.
  4. ↑ Michael C. Williams, Words, Images, Enemies, Securitization and International Politics, International Studies Quarterly 2003(47):512.
  5. 1 2 3 Anatol Lieven (2020). "Chpt. 1". Climate Change and the Nation State. Penguin Random House. pp. 6–9. ISBN   978-0-241-39407-6.
  6. ↑ Balzacq, Thierry (2005). "The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context". European Journal of International Relations. 11 (2): 171–201. doi:10.1177/1354066105052960. S2CID   145147916.
  7. ↑ Roe, Paul (Dec 1, 2008). "Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK's Decision to Invade Iraq". Security Dialogue. 39 (6): 615–635. doi:10.1177/0967010608098212. ISSN   0967-0106. S2CID   153447455.
  8. ↑ Abulof, Uriel (2014). "Deep Securitization and Israel's "Demographic Demon"". International Political Sociology. 8 (4): 396. doi:10.1111/ips.12070.
  9. ↑ Andrej Zwitter & Jaap de Wilde "Prismatic Security Expanding the Copenhagen School to the Local Level", Department of International Relations and International Organization (IRIO), University of Groningen.
  10. ↑ Roe, Paul (8 June 2012). "Is securitization a 'negative' concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics". Security Dialogue. 43 (3): 249–266. doi:10.1177/0967010612443723. ISSN   0967-0106. S2CID   144942498.
  11. ↑ Thomas Faist. 2005. "The Migration-Security Nexus: International Migration and Security." In: Migration, Citizenship and Ethnos: Incorporation Regimes in Germany, Western Europe and North America, edited by Y. Michal Bodemann and Gökce Yurdakul, pp. 103–120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; Fiona B. Adamson. 2006. "Crossing Borders: International Migration and National Security." International Security 31 (1): 165-99.
  12. ↑ Jef Huysmans. 2006. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge; Alison Gerard. 2014. The Securitization of Migration and Refugee Women. New York: Routledge.
  13. ↑ Choy, Wai Ching (2020). "The securitization of refugees in Hong Kong: government, members of the legislative council and Chinese newspapers (2005 to June 2019)". Social Transformations in Chinese Societies. 18: 19–45. doi:10.1108/STICS-11-2019-0016. ISSN   1871-2673. S2CID   225185606.
  14. ↑ Daniel Naujoks. 2015. "The securitization of dual citizenship. National security concerns and the making of the Overseas Citizenship of India." Diaspora Studies 8 (1), pp. 18–36.
  15. ↑ Buxton, Nick (12 October 2021). "Primer on climate security - The dangers of militarising the climate crisis". Transnational Institute.
  16. ↑ Daniel Deudney (1990). "The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security". Millennium . 19 (3): 461–476. doi:10.1177/03058298900190031001. S2CID   143290289.
  17. ↑ "NeoConOpticon". Transnational Institute. 2009-09-28. Retrieved 2021-11-10.
  18. ↑ "Guarding the fortress". Transnational Institute. 2019-11-26. Retrieved 2021-11-10.
  19. ↑ "Introduction: The Problems of Genocide". The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression. Human Rights in History. Cambridge University Press: 1–46. 2021. doi:10.1017/9781316217306.002. ISBN   9781107103580. S2CID   242373688.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.