La "sécurisation" répond-elle à tous les problèmes?
7.95€
exposé
publié le 02/08/2008
avis client : non évalué
niveau : avancé
consulté 0 fois
Résumé
On 10 January 2000, the Security Council of the United Nations chose symbolically to dedicate the first meeting of the new millennium to the issue of AIDS in Africa. For the first time, it has labelled a pandemic as “threat to international peace and security”. The underlying idea of talking about a “security crisis” instead of “health issue” was clear: the struggle against AIDS should become a political priority, because of its disastrous effects at all levels (human, regional, national, and global) .
By transforming a “health issue” into a “threat”, the Security Council offers a relevant example of what Waever calls “a securitizing move” . In the securitization theory, it is the designation of an “existential threat to a referent object” that legitimates the use of exceptional measures and “extraordinary means” to eliminate the so-called threat. In this “securitizing move”, one can see the importance of the “securitizing actors”: they can be state representatives but not only; Waever talks about an “elite”. But as Waever points out, “the issue is securitized only if “the audience accepts it as such”. Securitization needs negotiation, persuasive discourses, and consent. In short, here are the three steps of securitization (1) designation of an existential threat; (2) exceptional measures to eradicate the threat; (3) “effects on interunit by breaking free rules” . Securitization can affect any “public issue”, since the threats are constructed through a performative speech act. Therefore, it can be expanding to all the sectors identified by Barry Buzan other contributor of the “Copenhagen School” in People, States and Fear (1991): military, political, economic, societal and environmental.
The constructivist and discursive approach of the Copenhagen school shows that securitization is a major political act with significant effects. By labelling a security issue, the “securitizing actors” proposed to treat it with a threat-defense approach. The question “should everything be object of securitization?” brings about other underlying interrogations: is it always appropriate to securitize an issue? According to which criteria is it acceptable? What could be the limitations? At first sight, it seems that the term “everything” is excessive and unrealistic and that it necessary to find limitations to restrict what Nyers calls “rampant securitizations” . But if securitization is justified, why should restrict its use?
To answer those questions, part I. considers why the expanding of securitization can be justified. Part II. clarifies some inconvenient of an over-use of securitization to show why and how it should be limited.
By transforming a “health issue” into a “threat”, the Security Council offers a relevant example of what Waever calls “a securitizing move” . In the securitization theory, it is the designation of an “existential threat to a referent object” that legitimates the use of exceptional measures and “extraordinary means” to eliminate the so-called threat. In this “securitizing move”, one can see the importance of the “securitizing actors”: they can be state representatives but not only; Waever talks about an “elite”. But as Waever points out, “the issue is securitized only if “the audience accepts it as such”. Securitization needs negotiation, persuasive discourses, and consent. In short, here are the three steps of securitization (1) designation of an existential threat; (2) exceptional measures to eradicate the threat; (3) “effects on interunit by breaking free rules” . Securitization can affect any “public issue”, since the threats are constructed through a performative speech act. Therefore, it can be expanding to all the sectors identified by Barry Buzan other contributor of the “Copenhagen School” in People, States and Fear (1991): military, political, economic, societal and environmental.
The constructivist and discursive approach of the Copenhagen school shows that securitization is a major political act with significant effects. By labelling a security issue, the “securitizing actors” proposed to treat it with a threat-defense approach. The question “should everything be object of securitization?” brings about other underlying interrogations: is it always appropriate to securitize an issue? According to which criteria is it acceptable? What could be the limitations? At first sight, it seems that the term “everything” is excessive and unrealistic and that it necessary to find limitations to restrict what Nyers calls “rampant securitizations” . But if securitization is justified, why should restrict its use?
To answer those questions, part I. considers why the expanding of securitization can be justified. Part II. clarifies some inconvenient of an over-use of securitization to show why and how it should be limited.
Sommaire
- Why Is the Expanding of Securitization Justified?
- The Ends: What is at Stake?
- The Means: Is Securitization Efficient?
- Why and How Securitizations should be limited?
- Limits and Risks of Securitization
- How to Limit Securitization and for Which Alternatives?
Documents les plus consultés sur 30 jours en sciences politiques Dernières nouveautés dans la catégorie sciences politiques Du même auteur
2000-2008 Oboulo.com SARL -
- méthodologie
- contact
- CGU
- aide
- partenaires
- jobs
- plan
- presse
- qui sommes nous?
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- méthodologie
- contact
- CGU
- aide
- partenaires
- jobs
- plan
- presse
- qui sommes nous?
-
-
-
-
-
publication et recherche de docs