Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: bringing together the Copenhagen and the Welsh Schools of security studies
Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: bringing together the Copenhagen and the Welsh Schools of security studies
复制标题
对安全进行结果主义评估：汇集哥本哈根和威尔士安全研究学院
DOI：
10.1017/s026021050700753x
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Rita Floyd
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rita Floyd
本文试图在所谓的“哥本哈根学派”和所谓的“威尔士学派”之间架起一座桥梁。公共性的论题建立在证券化概念的评价性分叉之上，分为积极证券化和消极证券化。与此同时，“去证券化”的概念被分为积极的和消极的去证券化。这两个积极的概念被认为具有同等的价值，两者都胜过两个消极的概念。这种证券化/去证券化的评估策略，希望将联合收割机结合“威尔士学派”批判安全理论家对安全的乐观看法，与哥本哈根学派对安全的悲观看法--特别是与证券化理论的创始人Ole Wæver的看法。这种战略被认为是有利的，原因有三。首先，这些批判理论越是统一，就越能对主流安全研究提出挑战;其次，学术界越团结，其理论就越容易被决策者采纳（欧盟或其他）第三，这里提出的战略为分析师更好地评估安全性铺平了道路，允许对安全进行规范性的概念化，但否认对安全进行无限的概念化。为了说明证券化和非证券化的效用之间存在差异，本文通过例证的方式展示了这些区别，所有这些都来自环境安全部门。通过这种实际应用，本文将表明，证券化和非证券化本身都不是积极的或消极的。相反，证券化/取消证券化的结果总是取决于发行情况-这反映在这里建议的证券化双层结构中。
ABSTRACT This 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.