A Methodological Discussion on Evaluating the Success of Any Securitizing Move

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 1 - 16, 30.04.2024

Özge Gökçen Çetindişli

https://doi.org/10.37093/ijsi.1372347

Öz

The study objects to lay out a lucid perspective on "how any securitizing move occurs successfully" an issue that was non-rigidly theorized in the Copenhagen version of securitization, in line with current debates. To this end, the vague criteria as follows, set by the classical cadre of the Copenhagen School are problematized: actors have to couch the issue as an existential threat requiring exceptional executive powers, and, if the audience accepts the securitizing move, the case is established as a security issue beyond the routine procedure of politics. Considering this conservative cycle, the first claim of this paper is that the politics of ‟audience acceptance” is not adequately determined in theory. The second is that the classical variants’ persistence in the transition to "exceptional security policy" in the operation of securitization, ignoring its insecure nature, reduces the theory to a given and fixed understanding of security such as "security=exceptionalism." Premised on these arguments, the paper proposes an overarching systematized thought that empowers the audience’s role; does not exclude "exceptional measures" but also inserts into "normalized exceptional" and even "routine responses" as actions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

securitizing move, successful securitization, audience, extraordinary measures, intersubjectivity

Etik Beyan

The author declares that this article complies with ethical standards and rules.

Destekleyen Kurum

No financial support was received from any person or institution for the study.

Teşekkür

I extend my sincere thanks to Professor Dr. Tayyar Arı for his invaluable critique and contributions..

Kaynakça

• Ağır, B. (2023). Copenhagen School of security studies. In T. Arı (Ed.), Critical theories in international relations identity and security dilemma (pp. 125–144). Lexington Books.
• Akgül Açıkmeşe, S. (2011). Algı mı, söylem mi? Kopenhag Okulu ve Yeni Klasik Gerçekçilikte güvenlik tehditleri [Perception or discourse? Security threats in Copenhagen School and Neoclassical Realism]. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 8(30), 43–73. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/uidergisi/issue/39278/462550
• Akgul Acikmese, S. (2013). EU conditionality and desecuritization nexus in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 13(3), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2013.812772
• Aradau, C. (2004). Security and the democratic scene: Desecuritization and emancipation. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7(4), 388–413. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800030
• Arı, T. (2021). Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri [International relations theory]. (10th ed.). Aktüel.
• Arı, T. (2023). Introduction: Critical and post-modern challenge to international relations. In T. Arı (Ed.), Critical theories in international relations identity and security dilemma (pp. 1–8). Lexington Books.
• Arias, S. B. (2022). Who securitizes? Climate change discourse in the United Nations. International Studies Quarterly, 66(2), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac020
• Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Rumelili, B. (2019). Discourse analysis: Strengths and shortcomings. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 8(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.477300
• Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066105052960
• Balzacq, T. (2015). The ‘Essence’ of securitization: Theory, ideal type, and a sociological science of security. International Relations, 29(1), 103–113 https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606b
• Balzacq, T., Léonard, S., & Ruzicka, J. (2016). ‘Securitization’ revisited: Theory and cases. International Relations, 30(4), 494–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117815596590
• Behnke, A. (2000). The message or the messenger?: Reflections on the role of security experts and the securitization of political issues. Cooperation and Conflict, 35(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/00108360021962011
• Bigo, D. (2000). When two become one: Internal and external securitisations in Europe. In D. Bigo (Ed.), International relations theory and the politics of European integration (pp. 171–204). Routledge.
• Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(1_suppl), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105
• Bilgin, P. (2011). The politics of studying securitization? The Copenhagen School in Turkey. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418711
• Bourbeau, P. (2014). Moving forward together: Logics of the securitisation process. Millennium, 43(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814541504
• Brenan, M. (2018, February 19). North Korea surges to top of U.S. enemies list. GALLUP. Retrieved May 01, 2022, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/227813/north-korea-surges-top-enemies-list.aspx
• Bright, J. (2012). Securitisation, terror, and control: Towards a theory of the breaking point. Review of International Studies, 38(4), 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000726
• Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Collins, A. (2005). Securitization, Frankenstein’s Monster and Malaysian education. The Pacific Review, 18(4), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740500339034
• Corry, O. (2012). Securitisation and ‘riskification’: Second-order security and the politics of climate change. Millennium, 40(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811419444
• Côté, A. (2015). Social securitization theory [Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Calgary]. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/27817
• Côté, A. (2016). Agents without agency: Assessing the role of the audience in securitization theory. Security Dialogue, 47(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010616672150
• CNN (2017, Agust 03–06). CNN/SSRS Poll. Retrieved May 01, 2022, from http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/08/08/rel7b.-.north.korea.pdf
• Floyd, R. (2011). Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitization theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418712
• Floyd, R. (2016). Extraordinary or ordinary emergency measures: What, and who, defines the ‘success’ of securitization? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(2), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2015.1077651
• Floyd, R. (2023, March 15–18). Securitization theories: Big picture theorising vs. 1:1 mapping. ISA Annual Convention, Montréal.
• Grayson, K. (2003). Securitization and the Boomerang debate: A rejoinder to Liotta and Smith-Windsor. Security Dialogue, 34(3), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106030343009
• Guzzini, S. (2011). Securitization as a causal mechanism. Security Dialogue, 42(4/5), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611419000
• Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War. Routledge.
• Hansen, L. (2011). Theorizing the image for Security Studies: Visual securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis. European Journal of International Relations, 17(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110388593
• Jones, R. W. (1999). Security, strategy and critical theory. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Kaunert, C., Leonard, S., & Wertman, O. (2022). Securitization of COVID-19 as a security norm: WHO norm entrepreneurship and norm cascading. Social Sciences, 11(7), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11070266
• McDonald, M. (2008). Constructivism. In P. D. Willams (Ed.), Security studies: An introduction (pp. 59–73). Routledge.
• Neal, A. W. (2012). Normalization and legislative exceptionalism: Counterterrorist lawmaking and the changing times of security emergencies. International Political Sociology, 6(3), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2012.00163.x
• Patomäki, H. (2015). Absenting the absence of future dangers and structural transformations insecuritization theory. International Relations, 29(1), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606e
• Philipsen, L. (2018). Performative securitization: From conditions of success to conditions of possibility. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23(1), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0130-8
• Roe, P. (2006). Reconstruction identities or managing minorities? Desecuritizing minority rights: A response to Jutila. Security Dialogue, 37(3), 425–438.
• Roe, P. (2008). Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK’s Decision to Invade Iraq. Security Dialogue, 39(6), 615–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010608098212
• Roe, P. (2012). Is securitization a ‘negative’ concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics. Security Dialogue, 43(3), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010612443723
• Salter, M. B. (2008). Securitization and desecuritization: A dramaturgical analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Journal of International Relations and Development, 11(4), 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2008.20
• Salter, M. B. (2010). When securitization fails: The hard case of counter-terrorism programs. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 116–132). Routledge.
• Schmitt, C. (2002). Siyasi ilahiyat, egemenlik kuramı üzerine dört bölüm [Political theology four chapters on the concept of sovereignty] (E. Zeybekoğlu, Trans.). Dost Yayınları. (Original work published 1986).
• Secen, S. (2021). Explaining the politics of security: Syrian refugees in Turkey and Lebanon. Journal of Global Security Studies, 6(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa039
• Stritzel, H. (2007). Towards a theory of securitization: Copenhagen and beyond. European Journal of International Relations, 13(3), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107080128
• Trombetta, M. J. (2008). Environmental security and climate change: Analysing the discourse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(4), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570802452920
• Vuori, J. A. (2008). Illocutionary logic and strands of securitization: Applying the theory of securitization to the study of non-democratic political orders. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), 65–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107087767
• Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–86). Columbia University Press.
• Wæver, O. (2003). Securitization: Taking stock of a research programme in security studies [Unpublished Copy], 1–36.
• Wæver, O. (2011). Politics, security, theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418718
• Wæver, O. (2015). The theory act: Responsibility and exactitude as seen from securitization. International Relations, 29(1), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606d
• Wæver, O., & Buzan, B. (2020). Racism and responsibility – The critical limits of deepfake methodology in security studies: A reply to Howell and Richter-Montpetit. Security Dialogue, 51(4), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010620916153
• Wertman, O., & Kaunert, C. (2022). The audience in securitization theory. Strategic Assessment, 25(3), 67–81.
• Wilkinson, C. (2007). The Copenhagen School on tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is securitization theory useable outside Europe? Security Dialogue, 38(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010607075964
• Williams, M. C. (2003). Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics. International Studies Quarterly, 47(4), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00277.x
• Williams, M. C. (2011). The continuing evolution of securitization theory. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 212–222). Routledge,
• Williams, M. C. (2015). Securitization as political theory: The politics of the extraordinary. International Relations, 29(1), 114–120, https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606c