Suchergebnisse

Canadian foreign policy analysis has traditionally drawn heavily on the middle power concept. This paper proposes to look at Canadian foreign policy from a new angle: Using the concept of ontological security, it shows how "civilian power" elements such as multilateralism, institution building, and the rule of law, are connected to Canada's identity and foreign policy development. The article systematically compares public statements and speeches by government officials regarding the Syrian war. The comparison is conducted against the backdrop of the governments' foreign policy actions. On a theoretical level, the paper contributes to the discussion on Canadian identity and ontological security. Furthermore, it offers a comparison of the Syria policies of the Harper and the Trudeau governments, adding to the literature on differences and continuities between Conservative and Liberal Canadian foreign policy, as well as on empirical analyses of Canadian foreign policy and the Syrian war.

Der Angriffskrieg Russlands auf die Ukraine bedeutet, so kündigte es Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz an, auch eine 'Zeitenwende' in der deutschen Außenpolitik. Der vorliegende Beitrag geht der Frage nach, ob der Schock des russischen Angriffskriegs zu einem tiefgreifenden Wandel des außenpolitischen Diskurses geführt hat und somit von einem nachhaltigen Wandel der deutschen Außenpolitik selbst auszugehen ist. Auf Grundlage der Diskursgebundenen Identitätstheorie argumentieren die Autor*innen, dass ein nachhaltiger Wandel eine stabile Diskursallianz voraussetzt. Um die Frage zu beantworten, ob nun – wie von Kanzler Scholz behauptet – eine neue, beständige Politik etabliert werden kann, die von einem breiten Konsens der politischen Elite getragen wird, rekonstruiert der Beitrag zunächst die Positionen der Regierungs- und Oppositionsparteien bis sechs Monate vor dem Angriff und bettet sie in die historischen außenpolitischen Diskurskonstellationen ein. Anschließend fokussiert er die gegenwärtige Diskursallianz und wagt eine vorsichtige Einschätzung hinsichtlich ihrer Stabilität.

After the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris, the French government reacted swiftly by declaring a state of emergency. This state of emergency remained in place for over two years before it was ended in November 2017, only after being replaced by the new anti-terror legislation. The attacks as well as the government's reactions evoked parallels to 9/11 and its aftermath. This is a puzzling observation when taking into consideration that the Bush administration's reactions have been criticized harshly and that the US 'War on Terror' (WoT) was initially considered a serious failure in France. We can assume that this adaption of the discourse and practices stems from a successful establishment of the WoT macro-securitization. By using Securitization Theory, we outline the development of this macro-securitization by comparing its current manifestation in France against the backdrop of its origins in the US after 9/11. We analysed securitizing moves in the discourses, as well as domestic and international emergency measure policies. We find extensive similarities with view of both; yet there are differing degrees of securitizing terrorism and the institutionalisation of the WoT in the two states. This suggests that the WoT narrative is still dominant internationally to frame the risk of terrorism as an existential threat, thus enabling repressive actions and the obstruction of a meaningful debate about the underlying problems causing terrorism in the first place.