Pub Date : 2021-11-09DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1999230
Nele Marianne Ewers-Peters
{"title":"Rivals in arms: the rise of UK-France defence relations in the twenty-first century","authors":"Nele Marianne Ewers-Peters","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1999230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1999230","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"334 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49235352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1997994
Xuechen Chen
ABSTRACT The concept of Normative Power Europe (NPE) has sparked widespread debate over the EU’s external relations and its role in world politics. Whist the EU studies community has engaged with the NPE literature and studied EU norm-entrepreneurship at theoretical and empirical levels, the NPE literature suffers from two major shortcomings: first, it falls short in uncovering the multifaceted nature of EU diffusion objects across different policy areas; second, the effectiveness of EU norm diffusion remains underexplored. To remedy these limitations, this article aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the EU’s projection of normative power by drawing on analytical tools from diffusion literature. By doing so, this research argues that the EU’s projection of normative power in relation to other international actors can be conceptualised as a process of diffusion of EU norm-clusters in various policy areas. It also reconceptualises the impact of the EU’s normative power as varying diffusion outcomes. By undertaking an empirical case study of the EU–ASEAN security cooperation, this research adopts the analytical framework to unpack the EU’s projection of normative power and diffusion of security-related norm-cluster in relation to ASEAN.
{"title":"Unpacking Normative Power Europe: EU promotion of security norm cluster in ASEAN","authors":"Xuechen Chen","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1997994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1997994","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The concept of Normative Power Europe (NPE) has sparked widespread debate over the EU’s external relations and its role in world politics. Whist the EU studies community has engaged with the NPE literature and studied EU norm-entrepreneurship at theoretical and empirical levels, the NPE literature suffers from two major shortcomings: first, it falls short in uncovering the multifaceted nature of EU diffusion objects across different policy areas; second, the effectiveness of EU norm diffusion remains underexplored. To remedy these limitations, this article aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the EU’s projection of normative power by drawing on analytical tools from diffusion literature. By doing so, this research argues that the EU’s projection of normative power in relation to other international actors can be conceptualised as a process of diffusion of EU norm-clusters in various policy areas. It also reconceptualises the impact of the EU’s normative power as varying diffusion outcomes. By undertaking an empirical case study of the EU–ASEAN security cooperation, this research adopts the analytical framework to unpack the EU’s projection of normative power and diffusion of security-related norm-cluster in relation to ASEAN.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"262 - 288"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47359461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-26DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1993189
Katharina L. Meissner, Kevin Urbanski
ABSTRACT Export controls of dual-use products and sanctions on respective items are highly regulated in the European Union (EU). However, we find multiple instances of implementation and application problems of dual-use control in the Member States. To explain this puzzling observation, we investigate the relationship between the institutional design of sanctions and their subsequent implementation and application. Drawing on rational design theory, we argue that even if coherence is the EU’s stated goal, the institutional design of the current dual-use export control regime is inadequate to provide for coherence. National licensing decisions and a constant need for the interpretation of contingent rules in the implementation and application of dual-use sanctions are structural challenges to establish a coherent European policy. The relationship between institutional design and coherence, which we investigate in the context of sanctions, is not specific to the EU. Instead, we offer a novel conceptual and analytical tool to study the expected degree and causes of (in-)coherence in the implementation and application of any regime of international sanctions.
{"title":"Feeble rules: one dual-use sanctions regime, multiple ways of implementation and application?","authors":"Katharina L. Meissner, Kevin Urbanski","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1993189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1993189","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Export controls of dual-use products and sanctions on respective items are highly regulated in the European Union (EU). However, we find multiple instances of implementation and application problems of dual-use control in the Member States. To explain this puzzling observation, we investigate the relationship between the institutional design of sanctions and their subsequent implementation and application. Drawing on rational design theory, we argue that even if coherence is the EU’s stated goal, the institutional design of the current dual-use export control regime is inadequate to provide for coherence. National licensing decisions and a constant need for the interpretation of contingent rules in the implementation and application of dual-use sanctions are structural challenges to establish a coherent European policy. The relationship between institutional design and coherence, which we investigate in the context of sanctions, is not specific to the EU. Instead, we offer a novel conceptual and analytical tool to study the expected degree and causes of (in-)coherence in the implementation and application of any regime of international sanctions.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"222 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46417204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-18DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1987224
Linde Desmaele
ABSTRACT Observers continue to disagree on what, if anything, constituted the overarching logic guiding American foreign policy under the Trump administration, i.e. on how to describe Trump’s grand strategy. Rather than assessing the Trump administration’s statecraft on its own terms, however, most scholars fast forward to prescribing potential alternative approaches. To that end, they often cherry-pick different bits of empirical data to support their argument, without a clear theoretical or methodological justification. This is problematic, for the crucial question of whether Trump’s grand strategy was feasible and consistent with US interests cannot be properly answered without a shared baseline of what it precisely entails. In response, this article analyses factors from a variety of methodological perspectives – preferred modes of action, institutional commitments and discourses. An analysis of these factors in the context of Europe reveals that Trump pursued an onshore balancing strategy that built on three interrelated elements: power maximisation, relative gains and sovereignty. When transposing these elements to the European theatre, it appears that Trump's team pushed for a Europe that was divided, weak and relatively inconsequential as Washington sought to outcompete Beijing in order to retain global primacy.
{"title":"Unpacking the Trump administration’s grand strategy in Europe: power maximisation, relative gains and sovereignty","authors":"Linde Desmaele","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1987224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1987224","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Observers continue to disagree on what, if anything, constituted the overarching logic guiding American foreign policy under the Trump administration, i.e. on how to describe Trump’s grand strategy. Rather than assessing the Trump administration’s statecraft on its own terms, however, most scholars fast forward to prescribing potential alternative approaches. To that end, they often cherry-pick different bits of empirical data to support their argument, without a clear theoretical or methodological justification. This is problematic, for the crucial question of whether Trump’s grand strategy was feasible and consistent with US interests cannot be properly answered without a shared baseline of what it precisely entails. In response, this article analyses factors from a variety of methodological perspectives – preferred modes of action, institutional commitments and discourses. An analysis of these factors in the context of Europe reveals that Trump pursued an onshore balancing strategy that built on three interrelated elements: power maximisation, relative gains and sovereignty. When transposing these elements to the European theatre, it appears that Trump's team pushed for a Europe that was divided, weak and relatively inconsequential as Washington sought to outcompete Beijing in order to retain global primacy.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"180 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41899931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-14DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1987892
N. Gamkrelidze
ABSTRACT This article explores EU political elites' images of Georgia and its evolution from 1991 to 2020. The analysis relies on the author’s 25 original interviews with EU political elites, including presidents, prime ministers and ministers of EU member states and EU commissioners, alongside primary documents. By triangulating between novel interview data, document analysis and statements by EU officials, this article unpacks EU perceptions of Georgia’s intentions, capabilities, threats and cultural status over a 30-year historical period. The study shows that three main images of Georgia have emerged over time in the eyes of EU and EU member states leaders: first, Georgia as a willing partner to the EU; second, Georgia as a political partner to the EU and third, Georgia as a close political and economic partner to the EU. This article, by studying the EU political elites’ images of Georgia, adds knowledge to the EU’s perceptions of external actors, which is an under-researched topic in the scholarship of images and perceptions in EU external relations. Moreover, it extends the literature on EU–Georgia relations, and helps to understand some of their peculiarities.
{"title":"From a willing partner to close political and economic partner: analysing EU political elites’ images of Georgia from 1991 to 2020","authors":"N. Gamkrelidze","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1987892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1987892","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores EU political elites' images of Georgia and its evolution from 1991 to 2020. The analysis relies on the author’s 25 original interviews with EU political elites, including presidents, prime ministers and ministers of EU member states and EU commissioners, alongside primary documents. By triangulating between novel interview data, document analysis and statements by EU officials, this article unpacks EU perceptions of Georgia’s intentions, capabilities, threats and cultural status over a 30-year historical period. The study shows that three main images of Georgia have emerged over time in the eyes of EU and EU member states leaders: first, Georgia as a willing partner to the EU; second, Georgia as a political partner to the EU and third, Georgia as a close political and economic partner to the EU. This article, by studying the EU political elites’ images of Georgia, adds knowledge to the EU’s perceptions of external actors, which is an under-researched topic in the scholarship of images and perceptions in EU external relations. Moreover, it extends the literature on EU–Georgia relations, and helps to understand some of their peculiarities.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"200 - 221"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43227580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975
E. Cusumano, Oldřich Bureš
ABSTRACT International organisations (IOs) have increasingly resorted to private military and security companies (PMSCs) as providers of armed protection, training, intelligence, and logistics. In this article, we argue that IOs, seeking to reconcile conflicting international norms and member states’ growing unwillingness to provide the manpower required for effective crisis management, have decoupled their official policy on and actual use of PMSCs, thereby engaging in organised hypocrisy. Due to its stricter interpretation of norms like the state monopoly of violence, the United Nations (UN) has showcased a more glaring gap between talk and action than the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which display a more pragmatic, but not entirely consistent, approach to the use of PMSCs. By examining the decoupling between UN, EU, and NATO official contractor support doctrines and operational records, this article advances the debate on both security privatisation and organised hypocrisy.
{"title":"Varieties of organised hypocrisy: security privatisation in UN, EU, and NATO crisis management operations","authors":"E. Cusumano, Oldřich Bureš","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT International organisations (IOs) have increasingly resorted to private military and security companies (PMSCs) as providers of armed protection, training, intelligence, and logistics. In this article, we argue that IOs, seeking to reconcile conflicting international norms and member states’ growing unwillingness to provide the manpower required for effective crisis management, have decoupled their official policy on and actual use of PMSCs, thereby engaging in organised hypocrisy. Due to its stricter interpretation of norms like the state monopoly of violence, the United Nations (UN) has showcased a more glaring gap between talk and action than the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which display a more pragmatic, but not entirely consistent, approach to the use of PMSCs. By examining the decoupling between UN, EU, and NATO official contractor support doctrines and operational records, this article advances the debate on both security privatisation and organised hypocrisy.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"159 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49039875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1970537
Tim Haesebrouck, Yf Reykers, Daan Fonck
ABSTRACT While a comprehensive body of research provides evidence that politics does not always stop at the water’s edge, the question “when does politics stop at the water’s edge” has remained largely unanswered. This article addresses this gap in the literature by examining the level of agreement in Belgium’s parliament on military deployment decisions. More specifically, the uncontested decisions to participate in the 2011 Libya intervention and the air strikes against the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq are compared with the contested decision to participate in strike operations against IS over Syrian territory. The results of our study indicate that a broad parliamentary consensus will emerge if the domestic political context forces left- and right-leaning parties into negotiating a compromise that takes into account their preferences regarding the scope of the operation and if left-leaning parties have no reason to oppose the operation because it pursues inclusive goals and its international legal justification is not contested.
{"title":"Party politics and military deployments: explaining political consensus on Belgian military intervention","authors":"Tim Haesebrouck, Yf Reykers, Daan Fonck","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1970537","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1970537","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While a comprehensive body of research provides evidence that politics does not always stop at the water’s edge, the question “when does politics stop at the water’s edge” has remained largely unanswered. This article addresses this gap in the literature by examining the level of agreement in Belgium’s parliament on military deployment decisions. More specifically, the uncontested decisions to participate in the 2011 Libya intervention and the air strikes against the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq are compared with the contested decision to participate in strike operations against IS over Syrian territory. The results of our study indicate that a broad parliamentary consensus will emerge if the domestic political context forces left- and right-leaning parties into negotiating a compromise that takes into account their preferences regarding the scope of the operation and if left-leaning parties have no reason to oppose the operation because it pursues inclusive goals and its international legal justification is not contested.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"76 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46358478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1970538
Javad Keypour, Ulkar Ahmadzada
ABSTRACT Aiming to protect energy security, the European Union (EU) has sought to persuade third states to accept its energy acquis, relying on a formed strategic narrative. However, the coherency of this strategic narrative, as the prerequisite for being well-received, has not been studied before. Considering the strategic narrative theory and applying the content analysis method, our research has indicated that the EU’s narrative consists of five storylines, including geopolitics, the single energy market, and climate change, the last two of which have become increasingly accentuated over time. However, this strategic narrative suffers from two significant incoherencies, which lie between its storylines and also within the storyline. The results of our analyses indicate that both incoherencies originate from the securitisation of energy in the Union. This means that the effectiveness of the narrative formulated has been diminished, which is detrimental even to the EU’s climate policy. This could suggest that de-politicisation of energy is required to reinforce the narrative and enable the EU to address the world with one voice.
{"title":"Consolidating EU energy security by relying on energy de-politicisation","authors":"Javad Keypour, Ulkar Ahmadzada","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1970538","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1970538","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Aiming to protect energy security, the European Union (EU) has sought to persuade third states to accept its energy acquis, relying on a formed strategic narrative. However, the coherency of this strategic narrative, as the prerequisite for being well-received, has not been studied before. Considering the strategic narrative theory and applying the content analysis method, our research has indicated that the EU’s narrative consists of five storylines, including geopolitics, the single energy market, and climate change, the last two of which have become increasingly accentuated over time. However, this strategic narrative suffers from two significant incoherencies, which lie between its storylines and also within the storyline. The results of our analyses indicate that both incoherencies originate from the securitisation of energy in the Union. This means that the effectiveness of the narrative formulated has been diminished, which is detrimental even to the EU’s climate policy. This could suggest that de-politicisation of energy is required to reinforce the narrative and enable the EU to address the world with one voice.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"135 - 157"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42715333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-24DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1969363
Dong Jung Kim
ABSTRACT Intensifying strategic competition with China has introduced the need for the United States to consider extensive and stringent economic restrictions against the rising power. This article suggests that US economic containment of China is unlikely to materialise due to the presence of the EU states that are not militarily threatened by the geographically separated China and in a position to prioritise economic benefits in exchanges with that state. It first identifies the role of the EU in China’s foreign economic exchanges and addresses the ability of the EU states to replace the economic function of the United States in China. Then, it discusses how geographical conditions surrounding China make the rising state largely an East Asian threat. It suggests that, devoid of any direct military threat from China, the EU states can undermine the effectiveness of substantial US economic containment measures against China by functioning as alternative economic partners or facilitating China’s construction of alternative economic routes. Finally, this paper discusses the limitations in US ability to constrain the EU states’ economic exchanges with China. While concerns grow over Washington’s economic assertiveness against Beijing, the feasibility of a US-led upheaval in economic relations involving China should be carefully gauged.
{"title":"Europe as a geoeconomic pivot: geography and the limits of US economic containment of China","authors":"Dong Jung Kim","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1969363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1969363","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Intensifying strategic competition with China has introduced the need for the United States to consider extensive and stringent economic restrictions against the rising power. This article suggests that US economic containment of China is unlikely to materialise due to the presence of the EU states that are not militarily threatened by the geographically separated China and in a position to prioritise economic benefits in exchanges with that state. It first identifies the role of the EU in China’s foreign economic exchanges and addresses the ability of the EU states to replace the economic function of the United States in China. Then, it discusses how geographical conditions surrounding China make the rising state largely an East Asian threat. It suggests that, devoid of any direct military threat from China, the EU states can undermine the effectiveness of substantial US economic containment measures against China by functioning as alternative economic partners or facilitating China’s construction of alternative economic routes. Finally, this paper discusses the limitations in US ability to constrain the EU states’ economic exchanges with China. While concerns grow over Washington’s economic assertiveness against Beijing, the feasibility of a US-led upheaval in economic relations involving China should be carefully gauged.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"97 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49235364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-18DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2021.1949297
Ben Rosher
ABSTRACT Though conspicuous by its absence in debates among the British political and media establishments during the EU referendum campaign, the Irish border has been the central feature of Brexit as the implications and complications of trying to “take back control of borders” have become apparent. Drawing on focus group data gathered between 2017 and 2019 I employ ontological security theory to investigate the impact that Brexit is having on residents and communities living in the central Irish border region. In particular, I draw on the work of David Carr to explore the social role of memory and narrative in ontological (in)security and how this has manifested in the border region throughout the Brexit process. I find that the uncertainties generated by Brexit have caused border residents to draw on anxiety-filled memories and narratives from the securitised border of the pre-Good Friday Agreement era which they then project onto and vicariously through the next generation who, in turn, embody these anxieties, creating intergenerational ontological insecurity. Brexit has reintroduced, if not the physical border, the psychological borders of the past.
{"title":"“And now we’re facing that reality too”: Brexit, ontological security, and intergenerational anxiety in the Irish border region","authors":"Ben Rosher","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1949297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1949297","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Though conspicuous by its absence in debates among the British political and media establishments during the EU referendum campaign, the Irish border has been the central feature of Brexit as the implications and complications of trying to “take back control of borders” have become apparent. Drawing on focus group data gathered between 2017 and 2019 I employ ontological security theory to investigate the impact that Brexit is having on residents and communities living in the central Irish border region. In particular, I draw on the work of David Carr to explore the social role of memory and narrative in ontological (in)security and how this has manifested in the border region throughout the Brexit process. I find that the uncertainties generated by Brexit have caused border residents to draw on anxiety-filled memories and narratives from the securitised border of the pre-Good Friday Agreement era which they then project onto and vicariously through the next generation who, in turn, embody these anxieties, creating intergenerational ontological insecurity. Brexit has reintroduced, if not the physical border, the psychological borders of the past.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"21 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09662839.2021.1949297","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49493821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：