Security governance in Europe: a return to system
Security governance in Europe: a return to system
复制标题
欧洲安全治理：回归体系
DOI：
10.1080/09662839.2013.856305
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Sperling J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sperling J
治理似乎无处不在。它已被应用于不同的地理定义层面或空间（地方，国家，区域和全球）以及不同的问题领域（环境，气候，能源，经济等）（Enderlein et al. 2010）。从积极的角度来看，这种用法反映了人们对一个概念的广泛接受，这个概念包含（至少通过暗示）一套独特的含义和分析特征。然而，更消极的是，可以说这种无处不在的现象耗尽了意义的概念，从而限制了其描述和分析的有用性，并阻止了任何理论或概念意义的主张。在过去的十年中，治理已经被应用于国际安全领域，现在存在着一个可识别的工作机构，在“安全治理”的标签下进行交易。这些文献现在有足够的地位来吸引批评和改进。Christou等人（2010年，第343页）注意到，“三波”文学已经发展起来，第一次致力于定义问题，第二次是该概念的主角之间的辩论，第三次是其在欧洲安全政策中的应用。第四波浪潮也可以说是存在的，包括试图将这一概念传播到欧洲以外地区和全球层面（Sperling 2003, 2008; Kirchner and Domínguez 2011b; Breslin and Croft 2012a）。然而，作为一种分析和理解的途径，安全治理仍然存在问题，很大程度上是因为所谓的第一波浪潮的承诺仍然没有实现：安全治理在获得明确的定义精确性、概念清晰度和与安全研究词汇中其他更古老的概念不同的地位之前还有一段路要走。从这个角度来看，最近对该子学科的调查没有涉及安全治理文献（Buzan and Hansen 2009, Cavalty and Mauer 2010），这当然不是微不足道的；因此，如果要使这项工作产生重大影响，其固有的困难仍然需要加以解决。
Governance, it seems, is everywhere. It has been applied to different geographically defined levels or spaces (local, national, regional and global) and to different issue areas (environment, climate, energy, economy, etc.) (Enderlein et al. 2010). In positive terms, such usage reflects the widespread acceptance of a concept which connotes (at least, by implication) a distinct set of meanings and analytical features. Yet, more negatively, this very ubiquity could be said to drain the concept of meaning, thereby limiting its descriptive and analytical usefulness as well as forestalling any claims to theoretical or conceptual significance. Governance has over the last decade been applied to international security and an identifiable body of work now exists trading under the label of ‘security governance’. This literature is now of sufficient standing to have attracted both critique and refinement. Christou et al. (2010, p. 343) have noted that ‘three waves’ of literature have developed, with the first dedicated to matters of definition, the second to debate among the protagonists of the concept, and the third to its application to European security policies. A fourth wave can also be said to exist, involving attempts to transport the concept to both extra-European regions and the global level (Sperling 2003, 2008; Kirchner and Domínguez 2011b; Breslin and Croft 2012a). Yet as a route to analysis and understanding, security governance remains problematic largely because the promise ofthe so-called first wave remains unfulfilled: security governance has still some way to go before it obtains clear definitional precision, conceptual clarity and a standing that is distinct from other more time-honored concepts in the Security Studies lexicon. In this light, it is surely not insignificant that recent surveys of the subdiscipline do not engage with the security governance literature (Buzan and Hansen 2009, Cavalty and Mauer 2010); thus, if that body of work is to be consequential its inherent difficulties still need to be addressed.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.4324/9780203805008
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
Global Affairs
影响因子：
--
作者：
E. Kirchner;Roberto Domínguez
通讯作者：
Roberto Domínguez
欧洲安全治理：威斯特伐利亚世界中的欧盟
DOI：
10.4324/9780203875971
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
Millennium - Journal of International Studies
影响因子：
--
作者：
Charlotte Wagnsson;J. Sperling;J. Hallenberg
通讯作者：
J. Hallenberg
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
P. Robinson;E. de Leeuw
通讯作者：
E. de Leeuw
外交政策科学研究
影响因子：
64.8
作者：
J. Rosenau
通讯作者：
J. Rosenau
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bill Mcsweeney
通讯作者：
Bill Mcsweeney