Suchergebnisse

This chapter explores what a critical approach to UN peacekeeping entails and highlights the valuable contributions of Critical Security Studies (CSS) to capture the nature and significance of peace operations in international politics. It shows how CSS questions the values and representations that inform UN peacekeeping and the political order that peacekeeping interventions shape, promote or sustain. It further discusses how CSS unpacks peacekeeping (often mundane and daily) practices and their political and social implications and takes into account non-traditional security issues. The chapter then relies on CSS theoretical and methodological tools to study the specific case of the rise of environmental practices in UN peacekeeping. Drawing on the concepts of securitisation and environmentalisation, it demonstrates how UN peacekeeping has been framed as relevant to environmental policies, while contributing to a broader process of securitisation of the environment.

The main goal of this article is to present problems related to using a feminist approach in security studies. The starting point are some of the basic terms used in the internally diverse sphere of feminist theory and their application in the field of political science. An attempt is also made to define the objectives of selected feminist studies that can be used in the analysis of domestic and international security issues. The main thesis of the article is the assertion that security studies are dominated by assigned gender stereotypes and meanings embedded in the so-called male gaze.

Since the 1990s, (in)security in post-Soviet Eurasia has been conceptualized by International Relations scholars as being mainly connected to the permanence of regional violent conflicts and the challenges of fragile sovereignty. After 9/11, terrorism as a broad category has also been added to the lexicon. These views place state security at the centre of analysis, and focus mainly on military aspects of security. This article addresses the limitations of analyses of post-Soviet Eurasian security shaped by these two trends and puts forwards critical alternatives to analyse insecurity in this region. Building on insights from critical security studies, namely Ken Booth's work and his central concept of emancipation, as well as the nexus between human rights and security – human security –, this paper presents a new framework of analysis for regional (in)security in post-Soviet Eurasia. The main goal is to reflect on the innovative aspects of this approach in terms of understanding increasingly complex (in)security dynamics in this region, and overcome what have been mainly realist and realpolitik views of regional security.

Societal security, as developed by the Copenhagen School of Security, is an extremely important area of the broader contemporary security concept which, in addition to military issues, also takes into account a number of other threats coming from the fields such as political, economic, societal or environmental ones. In the study of contemporary societal security, a number of concepts specific to the theory of complex systems, such as complexity, self-organization, the threshold of chaos, etc., have been borrowed, substantially enriching the hermeneutics of security discourse on the basis of non-mechanistic interpretations of social systems. This article aims to show that in the study of societal security the use of tools specific to the study of modern complex systems has produced quite interesting results, which could give a new meaning to the research in this field. At the same time, the paper presents some conclusions regarding the methodology of analysis specific to the science of complexity applicable to the field of societal security.

This article is a contribution to transcending the dichotomy between deconstruction and reconstruction in critical security studies. In the first part, I review dominant (Western/liberal) logics of security and the main strands of critical security studies to argue for the need to: overcome the liberal framework of the balance among rights and freedom, with its inherent imbrication with the fantasy of absolute security; and, contra the ultimate conclusions of deconstructive critique, to take the desire for security seriously at the same time. By advocating for embracing the tensions that surface at this intersection, I then move to my reconstructive endeavor. I set out a meta-theory with both analytical and normative nature, agonistic security, inspired by the political theory developed by Mouffe and Laclau. Building on the opposition between antagonism and agonism, I argue that security belongs to the "political", and that it constitutes a field of struggle for politicization. I then argue for three conceptual shifts, which concretely define agonistic security: i) from an absolute/static to a relational/dynamic understanding of security; ii) from universalism to pluralism at a world scale; and iii) from the dominance of individual rights in Western/liberal thinking toward security as a collective endeavor. In conclusion, I take a step back and discuss the implications of agonistic security for the role of critique in security studies. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Security studies privileges the study of civil wars in some contexts over others. The field's leading journals mostly publish studies of armed conflicts in Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Armed conflicts in Asia receive comparatively little attention, despite their prevalence and protracted nature. Against the background of our own empirical archive—the decades-old but largely ignored civil war in Myanmar—we ask why some conflicts draw more scholarly interest than others and why this uneven attention matters. In doing so, we argue that the empirical selectivity bias in the study of civil war and armed conflict reflects (1) institutional entanglements between the field of security studies and Western foreign policy; and (2) sociological factors that shape the formation of scholarly subjectivities and pertain to methodological challenges. This uneven empirical landscape shapes our conceptual understanding of civil wars. In fact, prominent debates within leading security studies journals surrounding the nature of civil war and armed conflict are inseparable from the empirical contexts in which they emerged. Leveling such an uneven empirical landscape thus generates opportunities for discussing conflict, insecurity, and violence in a different light. In shedding light on this issue, we urge closer attention to questions of place, time, and power in the scholarly production of knowledge and ignorance.

The monograph Contemporary Security Studies: An Introduction to methodological, research and theoretical foundations of security is the result of many years of comprehensive research of the phenomenon of security and the endangering of security and it is the outcome of the research effort aimed to prove the scientific character of the security field. The fact is that security in the Republic of Serbia is still not in the national nomenclature of scientific fields. Instead, it is claimed, with some reason, but far from having absolute right to it, by political scientists, jurists, soldiers, ecologists, and similar scientific and educational, and professional profiles. In spite of everything, the theory and practice of security have developed to the point of growing into an independent scientific field within the social and humanity sciences, and to a great extent within the natural and technical and technological sciences. Therefore, we expect security to be declared an independent scientific field within the social and humanity sciences, and this monograph to be one of the numerous and firm arguments in accomplishing that aim. Respecting the postulates of the methodology of scientific research, professional ethics in higher education and scientific and research activities, but also the standards of the Code of Ethics of Scientific and Research Work of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, it is our duty to briefly elaborate the history of this book. Specifically, the ideas for the texts on security, endangering of security, and the methodology of exploring security phenomena, have been taken from the traditional Belgrade Security School that has been developed for years in the Education and Research Centre of the Security Institute, the former (Service, Department of) State Security, in the Security Information Agency, at the Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade (former Faculty of Civil Defence, before that, Faculty of National Defence), and in police education (the Secondary School of Interior Affairs in Sremska Kamenica, the College of Interior Affairs in Zemun, Police Academy in Belgrade, and the Academy of Criminalistics and Police Studies in Zemun). The presented scientific findings obtained scientific verification, to a smaller extent, by being published in the first and second edition of the course book National Security by the author Saša Mijaković PhD (Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, 2009, 2011). It was in the first three chapters of the course book (Methodological basis of national security, Security, and Endangering security), on around 100 pages. The development of scientific thought has led, over time, to the justified need for distancing the matter of the security basis/introduction to contemporary security studies from the matter of national security, and to intensive abstraction of the matter of the security basis in relation to the operationalized matter of the national security. The results of the distinction that refer to the basic categories of security are incorporated in this monograph. The scientific findings taken from the course book National Security (2009, 2011) constitute up to 30% of this monograph. Therefore, we strived to accomplish that Contemporary Security Studies: An Introduction to methodological, research and theoretical foundations of security meets all normative and ethic criteria of a new scientific publication, which was confirmed by the reviewers. Meanwhile, in the course book National Security (third edition, Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, Belgrade, 2015), these contents were, to a great extent, excluded and replaced by a new text. Finally, we were again honoured to have the publishing and copyrights remain in the hands of the Academy, to which we devoted our careers.

The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history. ; Since 1967, the Mershon Center for International Security Studies has worked to fulfillthe vision of Ralph D. Mershon. He gave his generous gift to The Ohio State University nearly 50 years ago to ensure that civilians would study military activities.The Mershon Center aims to advance the understanding of national security by examining it in a global context. Security is a very broad topic and encompasses many questions, as anyone looking at the range of things the U.S. Department of Defense spends money on would quickly see. In an era in which defining a problem as a matter of national security often leads to increased funding, it is not surprising that the security agenda is very long. To make a high-quality impact on this agenda, even with the considerable talent available at The Ohio State University, it is necessary to concentrate the Mershon Center's attention. We do this by focusing on three questions: 1) How is force in combination with diplomacy used in world affairs? 2) How do cultures and the ideas people have about what is right and about who they are affect their sense of security and readiness to fight and cooperate? 3) How can institutions be created to effectively manage violent conflicts both between states and within them? The center addresses these questions by funding faculty research, doctoral dissertation projects, and undergraduate research and study abroad. It also brings to the Ohio State campus leading scholars and policymakers who are identifying the most important issues within the three broad questions and finding the best answers to them. The center seeks to draw out the implications of those answers for both policymakers and citizens more generally. As is clear in Iraq and Afghanistan, often the most vexing problems involve social change, the mobilization of people for collective action, and the construction of legitimate governance. They also often include understanding how human beings and social systems are likely to behave, how leaders are likely to decide, and how we can avoid major intelligence failures or at least contain them. As part of The Ohio State University, the Mershon Center is fortunate in that it can draw on very talented people in numerous disciplines. Four federally funded national resources centers—for East Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia, and Latin America—cooperate with Mershon. Moreover, colleagues in political science, history, economics, psychology, anthropology, and philosophy as well as law, English, and other disciplines contribute in crucial ways. They bring diverse theoretical perspectives, different methodological skills, and a range of expertise in issue areas and geographic regions. They are willing to engage across disciplines, overcome initial obstacles of different vocabularies and jargon, and respect the rigor and appropriateness of both qualitative and quantitative data analysis. As colleagues from across campus engage at Mershon, they bring the best the academy has to offer to the questions at the heart of the center's mission. It is their ideas that drive the center and make directing it such a pleasure. This report highlights the work they have done and the products they have generated. I encourage you to seek more information about research done at the center and video recordings of many of its events on our web site at mershoncenter.osu.edu.-- Richard Herrmann, Director ; RESEARCH: Highlights ; Faculty Spotlight ; Research on Use of Force and Diplomacy ; Research on Ideas, Identities, and Decisional Processes ; Research on Institutions That Manage Violent Conflict -- STUDENTS: Ralph D. Mershon Study Abroad Scholarship -- FACULTY PUBLICATIONS AND HONORS: Books ; Articles, Essays, and Book Chapters ; Honors, Awards, and Service -- EVENTS: Conferences ; Calendar of Events -- POSTDOCS, VISITORS, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES: Postdoctoral Fellows ; Visiting Scholars ; Other Activities -- Oversight committee.

s. Identification with security studies in European countries is pretty low (around 10%). Security studies have strong connections with international relations – 2/3 of those who teach security studies also teach international relations. Lecturers of security studies focus mostly on "hard" security issues (56% of security lecturers give policy advice on international affairs, development aid and EU-matters and 41% of security lecturers are solicited on matters pertaining to "defence"). The share of security lecturers who advise on "soft" security issues is 16%. The geopolitical situation is a strong predictor of the size of security experts'community in European countries. In less democratic countries more researchers identify with security studies.

s. Identification with security studies in European countries is pretty low (around 10%). Security studies have strong connections with international relations – 2/3 of those who teach security studies also teach international relations. Lecturers of security studies focus mostly on "hard" security issues (56% of security lecturers give policy advice on international affairs, development aid and EU-matters and 41% of security lecturers are solicited on matters pertaining to "defence"). The share of security lecturers who advise on "soft" security issues is 16%. The geopolitical situation is a strong predictor of the size of security experts'community in European countries. In less democratic countries more researchers identify with security studies.

s. Identification with security studies in European countries is pretty low (around 10%). Security studies have strong connections with international relations – 2/3 of those who teach security studies also teach international relations. Lecturers of security studies focus mostly on "hard" security issues (56% of security lecturers give policy advice on international affairs, development aid and EU-matters and 41% of security lecturers are solicited on matters pertaining to "defence"). The share of security lecturers who advise on "soft" security issues is 16%. The geopolitical situation is a strong predictor of the size of security experts'community in European countries. In less democratic countries more researchers identify with security studies.

s. Identification with security studies in European countries is pretty low (around 10%). Security studies have strong connections with international relations – 2/3 of those who teach security studies also teach international relations. Lecturers of security studies focus mostly on "hard" security issues (56% of security lecturers give policy advice on international affairs, development aid and EU-matters and 41% of security lecturers are solicited on matters pertaining to "defence"). The share of security lecturers who advise on "soft" security issues is 16%. The geopolitical situation is a strong predictor of the size of security experts'community in European countries. In less democratic countries more researchers identify with security studies.

This article unpacks the ways Eastern Europe (broadly conceived) has featured as a space, trope, and scholarly origin in major International Security Studies (ISS) and International Relations (IR) journals over the past three decades. A framing and authorship analysis in 18 disciplinary journals between 1991 and 2019 demonstrates how the region has been instrumental for the ISS subfield as an exemplary student of the Western theory and practice of IR. Eastern Europe has served as a symbolic space for exercising the civilising mission of the West and testing the related theories (security community building, democratisation, modernisation, Europeanisation, norm diffusion) in practice. The relative dearth of East European voices in ISS and leading IR theory journals speaks volumes about the politics of knowledge production and the analytical economy of the field. The positionality of East European 'captive minds' complicates 'worlding' IR from the region. The East European subalterns are largely enfolded in the definitive discourses of the field, and their power through disciplinary journals remains marginal.

Critical Security Studies proceeds from the premise that words are world-making, that is that the ways we think about security are constitutive of the worlds of security we analyse. Turned to conventional security studies and the practices of global politics, this critical insight has revealed the ways in which the exclusions that are the focus of this conference have been produced. Perhaps most notable in this regard has been David Campbell's work, showing how the theory and practice of security are an identity discourse producing both insides and outsides, but the production of excluded others is a theme that runs through the critical scholarship on security in the past decade or more. This article turns the critical security studies gaze on itself, to explore the field's own complicity in the production of exclusions. The article reads three important instances of critical security studies for the inclusions and exclusions they produce: Ken Booth's Theory of World Securitv, the epilogue to David Campbell's Writing Security, and the CASE Collective Manifesto. The article concludes by asking about the nature of the inclusions and exclusions these divisions produce and the politics which those exclusions, in turn, (re)produce.

Security studies scholarship on nuclear weapons is particularly prone to self-censorship. In this essay, I argue that this self-censorship is problematic. The vulnerability, secrecy, and limits to accountability created by nuclear weapons (Deudney 2007, 256–57; Born, Gill, and Hânggi 2010; Cohen 2010, 147) call for responsible scholarship vis-à-vis the general public. This need for renewed and expanded scholarly responsibility is especially pressing given current plans among nuclear-weapon states to "modernize" their nuclear arsenals, committing their citizens and children to live in nuclear-armed countries and, a fortiori, a nuclear armed world (Mecklin 2015). Despite this need, the existing reflexive literature in security studies—calling for greater scholarly responsibility (see Steele and Amoureux 2016; Waever 2015, 95–100)—has neither specifically focused on nuclear weapons nor explored the forms of self-censorship identified here as shaping a modality of responsibility. In making this case, I define self-censorship in nuclear weapons scholarship as unnecessary boundaries on scholarly discourse within security studies. In this article, I identify three forms of self-censorship: an epistemological self-censorship that denies the normative foundations of nuclear studies; a rhetorically induced form of censorship that leads scholars to stay away from radical reorderings of the world (e.g., world government or the abolition of nuclear weapons) because of the joint rhetorical effects of the tropes of non-proliferation and deterrence; and, finally, a "presentist imaginal" form of self-censorship that leads scholars to obfuscate the implicit bets they make on their considered possible futures and their constitutive effects on the "present" they analyze. I do not claim that these are the only forms of self-censorship. I also leave aside the non-discursive structures of knowledge production and the institutional and political constraints on nuclear studies. However, as I show in the concluding section, these three ...