The Copenhagen View of Securitization: Basics and Challenges

Document Type : Original Article

Author

PhD student of political science at Shahid Beheshti University and researcher at Imam Hussein University of Technology

Abstract

How security issues emerge and solve is one of the key topics in contemporary security studies. Since the Copenhagen School Security Theory is one of the most interesting and controversial perspectives in this field, the present paper seeks to address the foundations of the theory and the problems that lie with it, relying on documentary studies. Inspired by Austin's philosophy of language and social theory, security considers both speech action and social construction. Influenced by Schmidt's political philosophy, the security rationale emphasizes the need for state survival, urgency and priority for action. The security issue also shows political choice and social significance. However, the Copenhagen school's view of security is a negative and favorable view of non-security, although in some cases security is essential. The paper has criticized the theory from three angles: one from those who question its basic form; another from those who want to partially refine and clarify the ambiguities; those who accept the general idea of ​​security. However, by expressing its fundamental shortcomings, they sought to reconstruct this theory horizontally beyond the Copenhagen school.

Keywords

References

Balzacq T. (ed.) (2011). Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. London, Routledge.
Columba, People & Williams Nick Vaughan (2010). Critical Security Studies: An Introduction, Routledge.
McDonald, M. (2008). “Securitization and the Construction of Security”, European Journal of InternationalRelations , 14(4).
Nyman, Jonna (2013). “Securitization theory”, in: Laura J. Shepherd (ed), Critical Approaches to Security: An introduction to theories and methods, New York, Routledge.
Pram gad, Ulrik & Karen Lund Peterson (2011). “Concepts of politics in securitization studies”, Security Dialogue, 42(4-5).
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).
Stritzel, H. (2014). Security in translation, Securitization Theory and the Localization of Threat, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Vuori, J. A. (2008). “Illocutionary logic and strands of securitisation – Applying the theory of securitisation to the study of non-democratic political orders”, European Journal of International Relations, 14(1).
Wæver, O. (1995). “Securitization and desecuritization”, in: R. D. Lipschutz (ed.), On security, New York, Columbia University Press.
–––– (2003). Securitization: Taking stock of a research program in security studies, Mimeo.
Williams, M. C. (2003). “Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics”, International Studies Quarterly, 47(4).

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 May 2018
  • Revise Date: 13 January 2019
  • Accept Date: 19 September 2018
  • Publish Date: 09 May 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics