Content deleted Content added
Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) m +{{Authority control}} (1 ID from Wikidata); WP:GenFixes & cleanup on |
No edit summary |
||
Line 7:
==Origin==
Within international relations, the concept is connected with the [[Copenhagen School (international relations)|Copenhagen School]] and is seen as a synthesis of [[Constructivism (international relations)|constructivist]] and classical political [[Realism (international relations)|realism]] in its approach.<ref>Michael C. Williams, ''Words, Images, Enemies, Securitization and International Politics'', International Studies Quarterly 2003(47):512.</ref> 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|date=June 2024}}
==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.<ref name = Lieven2020/>
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|date=June 2024}}
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".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Balzacq|first1=Thierry|title=The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context|journal=European Journal of International Relations|volume=11|issue=2|pages=171–201|doi=10.1177/1354066105052960|year=2005|s2cid=145147916}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roe|first=Paul|date=Dec 1, 2008|title=Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK's Decision to Invade Iraq|journal=Security Dialogue|language=en|volume=39|issue=6|pages=615–635|doi=10.1177/0967010608098212|s2cid=153447455|issn=0967-0106}}</ref>
Line 23:
* An audience: the target of the securitization act that needs to be persuaded and accept the issue as a security threat.
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."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Abulof|first=Uriel|title=Deep Securitization and Israel's "Demographic Demon"|journal=International Political Sociology|volume=8 |issue=4|page=396|year=2014|doi=10.1111/ips.12070}}</ref> 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|date=June 2024}}
==Effects on society==
Line 36:
* [[Environmental security|Environmental]]
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; [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|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|date=June 2024}}
Another example for securitized sectors are [[immigration]]<ref>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.</ref> and [[refugee]]<ref>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.</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Choy|first1=Wai Ching|title=The securitization of refugees in Hong Kong: government, members of the legislative council and Chinese newspapers (2005 to June 2019)|journal=Social Transformations in Chinese Societies|date=2020|volume=18|pages=19–45|issue=|doi=10.1108/STICS-11-2019-0016|s2cid=225185606|issn=1871-2673}}</ref> issues. Concerns of terrorist infiltration are regularly cited as grounds for the tight [[Border control|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.<ref>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.</ref>
==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|date=June 2024}}
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|date=June 2024}}
The existential threat of [[climate change]] is another example of an issue that is beginning to become securitized, for example by the trend to [[Climate emergency declaration|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 [[Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C|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.<ref name = Lieven2020/> 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."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Buxton|first=Nick|title=Primer on climate security - The dangers of militarising the climate crisis|url=https://www.tni.org/en/publication/primer-on-climate-security|journal=Transnational Institute|date=12 October 2021}}</ref>
| |||