Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTThis article constitutes an attempted bridge-building between the so-called 'Copenhagen School' and the so-called 'Welsh School' of security studies. The thesis of communality rests upon an evaluative bifurcation of the concept of securitisation into positive and negative securitisation. In tandem with this lies a bifurcation of the concept of desecuritisation into positive and negative desecuritisation. The two positive concepts are believed to be of equal value, with both trumping over the two negative concepts.This evaluative strategy of securitisation/desecuritisation, it is hoped will combine the optimistic perception of security by 'Welsh School' critical security theorists, with the more pessimistic perception of security associated with the Copenhagen School – particularly with that of Ole Wæver, the originator of securitisation theory. Such a strategy is seen as advantageous for three reasons. First, it is believed that the more unified these critical theories are, the stronger a challenge they can offer to the mainstream of security studies; second, the more united the academy the more adoptable are its theories for policymakers (EU or otherwise) and third the strategy proposed here paves the way for a more evaluative engagement with security on the part of the analyst, allowing for normative – but denying infinite – conceptualisations of security.In order to show that there are differences between the utility of securitisation and desecuritisation, this article demonstrates the distinctions by way of illustrative examples, all of which are taken from the environmental security sector. By means of this practical application, the article will show that neither securitisation nor desecuritisation are, in and of themselves positive or negative. It is rather the case that the outcome of a securitisation/desecuritisation is always issue dependent – something reflected here in the suggested two-tier structure of securitisation.

ch. 1. Analyst, theory and security : a new framework for understanding environmental security studies / Rita Floyd -- ch. 2. The evolution of qualitative environment-conflict research : moving towards consensus / Tom Deligiannis -- ch. 3. Environmental security and the resource curse / Indra de Soysa -- ch. 4. A political ecology of environmental security / Michael Watts -- ch. 5. From conflict to cooperation? : environmental cooperation as a tool for peace-building / Achim Maas and Alexander Carius with Anja Wittich -- ch. 6. Environmental dimensions of human security / Simon Dalby -- ch. 7. Ecological security : a conceptual framework / Dennis C. Pirages -- ch. 8. Gender and environmental security / Nicole Detraz -- ch. 9. Understanding water security / Patrick MacQuarrie and Aaron T. Wolf -- ch. 10. Conservation, science and peace-building in southeastern Europe / Saleem H. Ali and Mary C. Watzin -- ch. 11. Population and national security / Jennifer Sciubba, Carolyn Lamere and Geoffrey D. Dabelko -- ch. 12. Environmental security and sustainable development / Bishnu Raj Upreti -- ch. 13. Ensuring food security : meeting challenges from malnutrition, food safety, and global environmental change / Bryan McDonald -- ch. 14. Challenging inequality and injustice : a critical approach to energy security / Adam Simpson -- ch. 15. Climate change and security / Richard A. Matthew -- ch. 16. Whither environmental security studies? : an afterword / Rita Floyd.

Economic development, population growth and poor resource management have combined to alter the planet's natural environment in dramatic and alarming ways. For over twenty years, considerable research and debate have focused on clarifying or disputing linkages between various forms of environmental change and various understandings of security. At one extreme lie sceptics who contend that the linkages are weak or even non-existent; they are simply attempts to harness the resources of the security arena to an environmental agenda. At the other extreme lie those who believe that these linkage.

Abstract
The western response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was unprecedented. The states of the European Union, the G7 and NATO have targeted Russia with sanctions and diplomatic isolation, and furnished Ukraine with military assistance sufficient to ensure the Zelensky regime's survival. These efforts have proven insufficient to dislodge Russia from its occupation of Ukrainian territory. Nonetheless, when launched in the aftermath of the invasion, they were seen (and often justified as) as bold, innovative, and steadfast—a necessary response to a grievous act. What explains this response? In this article we argue that the answer lies in the emotions of guilt and shame for past actions and mistakes in the West's dealings with Russia and Ukraine. Informed by a qualitative discourse analysis of key speeches, statements and interviews with leading western policy-makers (past and present), we regard these two emotions—expressed as apologies and the acknowledgment of mistakes—as important drivers of policy. This article contributes to the bourgeoning literature on emotions in world politics. In addition to offering a coherent explanation of the West's unprecedented response our argument has policy implications. While the admission of wrongdoing is laudable, it can lead to actors overcompensating, resulting in further mistakes and policy failures. Fast-tracking Ukraine into the European Union would be one such error.