Suchergebnisse

Abstract
As the world continues to fail to reduce and control global surface temperatures, the use of solar radiation management (SRM) technology by one actor or by a small coalition of actors is becoming increasingly likely. Yet, most of the social scientific literature on solar geoengineering does not tend to systematically engage with this possibility; scholars focus either on global governance or on banning SRM usage and research altogether. On the margins of this debate, a handful of researchers have sought to bring insights from the just war tradition to the issue of unilateral and minilateral SRM usage. This article is concerned with the contribution just war/securitization theories can make to our understanding of the debate surrounding climate engineering. It scrutinizes and deepens existing attempts by just war scholars to examine the moral permissibility of unilateral and minilateral SRM usage, including from the perspective of Just Securitization Theory.

On November 26, 2021, Dr. Rita Floyd, Associate Professor at the University of Birmingham, presented on The Morality of Security at the 2021 CASIS West Coast Security Conference. Dr. Floyd's presentation focused on securitization and its emergence within politics, with some primary concepts centering around security threats being politically and socially constructed and the criteria for when securitization is morally justifiable. Dr. Floyd's presentation was followed by a question-and-answer period directed at a group of panelists allowing the audience and CASIS Vancouver executives to directly engage with the content of each speaker's presentation.

This article argues that public expressions of Islamophobia are best understood as securitising requests (that is, calls on powerful figures/bodies to treat an issue in security mode so that extraordinary measures can be used to combat it), especially in those cases where Muslims are feared and disliked because of the perception that Islamic people are prone to terrorism. This article argues that harmful and derogatory securitising requests targeting racial, ethnic, or religious minorities are on par with hate speech and it highlights the fact that many contemporary societies are now seeking legal protections against such security speech (expressed most notably in the desire to ban Islamophobia). It is from this perspective that this article poses an important research question: With a view to protecting those adversely affected, are legal protections against harmful and offensive securitising requests justified? The research question can be answered by drawing parallels to the existing hate speech debate in legal and political theory. The research reveals that, although the case against legal protections of harmful and defamatory security speech is ultimately more convincing, security speech alone can be so damaging that it should be informed by a number of ethical considerations. This article goes on to suggest three criteria for governing the ethics of requesting securitisation. As such this article fills a lacuna in the 'positive/negative debate' on the ethics of security that has engaged with securitisation, but that has failed to consider the ethics of speaking security.