Pub Date : 2021-01-06DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1866845
Amir Lupovici
ABSTRACT In this article I introduce the concept of the “dual-use security dilemma,” specifically through elaborating on two main aspects that shape this dilemma. First, inspired by traditional security scholarship, I focus on the spiral dynamics of actors responding to the insecurities raised by dual-use technologies that affect this type of dilemma. Second, I further develop a securitization reading of the traditional security dilemma, tracing how social constructions of insecurities and the justification of extraordinary measures affect the dynamics of the security dilemma. Combining these two aspects, I suggest that enunciators shape the dynamics of the dual-use security dilemma by using specific rationales of insecurity to mobilize support for measures against opponents holding dual-use technologies, whose response further fuels insecurity that spirals over time. The innovative theoretical and policy implications of this research become especially important given the rise of dual-use cyber technologies.
{"title":"The dual-use security dilemma and the social construction of insecurity","authors":"Amir Lupovici","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1866845","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1866845","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article I introduce the concept of the “dual-use security dilemma,” specifically through elaborating on two main aspects that shape this dilemma. First, inspired by traditional security scholarship, I focus on the spiral dynamics of actors responding to the insecurities raised by dual-use technologies that affect this type of dilemma. Second, I further develop a securitization reading of the traditional security dilemma, tracing how social constructions of insecurities and the justification of extraordinary measures affect the dynamics of the security dilemma. Combining these two aspects, I suggest that enunciators shape the dynamics of the dual-use security dilemma by using specific rationales of insecurity to mobilize support for measures against opponents holding dual-use technologies, whose response further fuels insecurity that spirals over time. The innovative theoretical and policy implications of this research become especially important given the rise of dual-use cyber technologies.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"257 - 285"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1866845","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44345568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1847800
E. Krahmann
ABSTRACT Visuality is a central aspect of everyday security governance. In the recent visual turn in International Relations, however, the more mundane and routine visualities of security have been widely neglected. To address this gap, this article proposes a framework for analyzing the messages of security and risk conveyed by different modes of visual representations, ranging from press photos and educational images to outwardly appearances. Taking the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) as an example, it shows that everyday visual representations reflect and contribute to security risk management in four ways: (1) They assist in the construction of self and other identities with regard to security, (2) they help to identify potential vulnerabilities, (3) they are used to educate people how to detect, assess, and behave in risky situations, and (4) they are employed to deter violent attacks.
{"title":"Everyday visuality and risk management: Representing (in)security in UN peacekeeping","authors":"E. Krahmann","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1847800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1847800","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Visuality is a central aspect of everyday security governance. In the recent visual turn in International Relations, however, the more mundane and routine visualities of security have been widely neglected. To address this gap, this article proposes a framework for analyzing the messages of security and risk conveyed by different modes of visual representations, ranging from press photos and educational images to outwardly appearances. Taking the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) as an example, it shows that everyday visual representations reflect and contribute to security risk management in four ways: (1) They assist in the construction of self and other identities with regard to security, (2) they help to identify potential vulnerabilities, (3) they are used to educate people how to detect, assess, and behave in risky situations, and (4) they are employed to deter violent attacks.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"83 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1847800","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43855275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1845935
Ondřej Rosendorf
ABSTRACT Many see the advent of lethal autonomous weapon systems as the next revolution in military affairs. Currently, some 30 countries share the view that these weapons should be preemptively banned, but we know relatively little about their motivations. This study contributes to the growing literature on “killer robots” by theorizing preventive arms control as an anticipatory response to military innovation. I suggest that states prefer preventive arms control when they lack capacities or incentives to pursue innovation in the first place. I analyze a cross-sectional dataset on national positions toward the ban on autonomous weapons and demonstrate that the probability of support for preventive prohibition decreases with increasing financial and technological capacities. Both democracies and autocracies are less likely to support the ban than mixed regimes. Conversely, states with strong humanitarian orientation and high socialization within specific arms control regimes are more likely to support the ban.
{"title":"Predictors of support for a ban on killer robots: Preventive arms control as an anticipatory response to military innovation","authors":"Ondřej Rosendorf","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1845935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1845935","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many see the advent of lethal autonomous weapon systems as the next revolution in military affairs. Currently, some 30 countries share the view that these weapons should be preemptively banned, but we know relatively little about their motivations. This study contributes to the growing literature on “killer robots” by theorizing preventive arms control as an anticipatory response to military innovation. I suggest that states prefer preventive arms control when they lack capacities or incentives to pursue innovation in the first place. I analyze a cross-sectional dataset on national positions toward the ban on autonomous weapons and demonstrate that the probability of support for preventive prohibition decreases with increasing financial and technological capacities. Both democracies and autocracies are less likely to support the ban than mixed regimes. Conversely, states with strong humanitarian orientation and high socialization within specific arms control regimes are more likely to support the ban.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"30 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1845935","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43113579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1826149
E. Gordon, Katrina Lee-Koo
ABSTRACT Adolescent girls face significant and often unique forms of insecurity in protracted crises. Yet, their specific needs tend to be overlooked by international agencies, and they are rarely consulted as programs are developed and implemented. Drawing from field research conducted in four crisis contexts—Lake Chad (Niger, Nigeria, and Cameroon), South Sudan and Uganda, Lebanon (Beirut), and Bangladesh (Cox’s Bazar)—this article explores the experiences of insecurity that adolescent girls face in crisis contexts, and the extent to which responses to their needs are inclusive, responsive, and effective. Employing literature from inclusive peacebuilding, the article argues that marginalizing adolescent girls in the development and implementation of programs compromises the ability for such programs to be responsive to their needs. Moreover, it misses the opportunity to employ their skills, knowledge, and strengths to build resilience and security within their communities.
{"title":"Addressing the security needs of adolescent girls in protracted crises: Inclusive, responsive, and effective?","authors":"E. Gordon, Katrina Lee-Koo","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1826149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1826149","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Adolescent girls face significant and often unique forms of insecurity in protracted crises. Yet, their specific needs tend to be overlooked by international agencies, and they are rarely consulted as programs are developed and implemented. Drawing from field research conducted in four crisis contexts—Lake Chad (Niger, Nigeria, and Cameroon), South Sudan and Uganda, Lebanon (Beirut), and Bangladesh (Cox’s Bazar)—this article explores the experiences of insecurity that adolescent girls face in crisis contexts, and the extent to which responses to their needs are inclusive, responsive, and effective. Employing literature from inclusive peacebuilding, the article argues that marginalizing adolescent girls in the development and implementation of programs compromises the ability for such programs to be responsive to their needs. Moreover, it misses the opportunity to employ their skills, knowledge, and strengths to build resilience and security within their communities.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"53 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1826149","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46871983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-28DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1800240
Vladimir Rauta
ABSTRACT The rapid expansion of the proxy war literature invites an examination of its advances and developments. This article’s aims are threefold. First, to assess proxy war literature with a view to understand how it has progressed knowledge. Second, to map the field’s effort to cumulate knowledge. Third, to think creatively about the future directions of this research agenda as it addresses a problem no longer at the periphery of contemporary security debates. This article proposes a novel categorization of the evolution of our thinking about proxy wars across three “generations”: founders, framers, and reformers. Following on from this, it provides an assessment of the literature’s assumptions in order to show what remains, or not, under-studied. In doing so, it makes a case for a historiography of the idea of “proxy war,” and one for embedding strategy in analyses of wars by proxy.
{"title":"Framers, founders, and reformers: Three generations of proxy war research","authors":"Vladimir Rauta","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1800240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1800240","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The rapid expansion of the proxy war literature invites an examination of its advances and developments. This article’s aims are threefold. First, to assess proxy war literature with a view to understand how it has progressed knowledge. Second, to map the field’s effort to cumulate knowledge. Third, to think creatively about the future directions of this research agenda as it addresses a problem no longer at the periphery of contemporary security debates. This article proposes a novel categorization of the evolution of our thinking about proxy wars across three “generations”: founders, framers, and reformers. Following on from this, it provides an assessment of the literature’s assumptions in order to show what remains, or not, under-studied. In doing so, it makes a case for a historiography of the idea of “proxy war,” and one for embedding strategy in analyses of wars by proxy.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"113 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2020-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1800240","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46042615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2019.1698691
Rafael Duarte Villa, N. Jenne
ABSTRACT Emerging powers from the global south have generally opposed the use of force in international politics. However, taking a closer look at the area of peacekeeping, the international community’s most institutionalized response to international insecurity, it is clear that the global south has been actively engaged in what has been described as peacekeeping’s coercive turn: the increasingly greater use of force. Building on the cases of Brazil and Indonesia, we argue that the peacekeeping policies of these emerging powers have been inconsistent with their declared reticence to use force. We explain the inconsistency by reference to knowledge imbalances between civilian and military actors, a gap in peacekeeping expertise and involvement in policy-making that allowed the armed forces to push the two countries into increasingly coercive peacekeeping. Moreover, civil–military knowledge imbalances prevented the emergence of alternative ideas more in line with Brazil’s and Indonesia’s traditional stance on the use of force.
{"title":"By all necessary means? Emerging powers and the use of force in peacekeeping","authors":"Rafael Duarte Villa, N. Jenne","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2019.1698691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2019.1698691","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Emerging powers from the global south have generally opposed the use of force in international politics. However, taking a closer look at the area of peacekeeping, the international community’s most institutionalized response to international insecurity, it is clear that the global south has been actively engaged in what has been described as peacekeeping’s coercive turn: the increasingly greater use of force. Building on the cases of Brazil and Indonesia, we argue that the peacekeeping policies of these emerging powers have been inconsistent with their declared reticence to use force. We explain the inconsistency by reference to knowledge imbalances between civilian and military actors, a gap in peacekeeping expertise and involvement in policy-making that allowed the armed forces to push the two countries into increasingly coercive peacekeeping. Moreover, civil–military knowledge imbalances prevented the emergence of alternative ideas more in line with Brazil’s and Indonesia’s traditional stance on the use of force.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"41 1","pages":"407 - 431"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2019.1698691","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42984598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-08DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025
Milena Dieckhoff
ABSTRACT Humanitarian agencies working in violent conflicts often insist on separating humanitarian negotiations from political mediation efforts. However, many academics and practitioners also wonder if humanitarian negotiations can really be apolitical and disentangled from peace negotiations. Using the case study of Syria, this article analyzes the interactions between humanitarian negotiations and international peace negotiations. By considering various actors involved in Syria and the different arenas of negotiations (mainly the Astana talks and the United Nations negotiations led by the Special Envoy), it demonstrates that humanitarian and peace negotiations are governed by a complex interdependence. A dual process of politicization of humanitarian action and “humanitarization” of political negotiations is at work, in a Syrian context characterized by a fragmented and controversial humanitarian space. This article is based on unique data from participant observation during four international meetings bringing together humanitarian practitioners from different organizations and political actors.
{"title":"Reconsidering the humanitarian space: Complex interdependence between humanitarian and peace negotiations in Syria","authors":"Milena Dieckhoff","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Humanitarian agencies working in violent conflicts often insist on separating humanitarian negotiations from political mediation efforts. However, many academics and practitioners also wonder if humanitarian negotiations can really be apolitical and disentangled from peace negotiations. Using the case study of Syria, this article analyzes the interactions between humanitarian negotiations and international peace negotiations. By considering various actors involved in Syria and the different arenas of negotiations (mainly the Astana talks and the United Nations negotiations led by the Special Envoy), it demonstrates that humanitarian and peace negotiations are governed by a complex interdependence. A dual process of politicization of humanitarian action and “humanitarization” of political negotiations is at work, in a Syrian context characterized by a fragmented and controversial humanitarian space. This article is based on unique data from participant observation during four international meetings bringing together humanitarian practitioners from different organizations and political actors.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"41 1","pages":"564 - 586"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2020-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1773025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45335532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-30DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1771955
Adam Ferhani, Simon Rushton
ABSTRACT It is often said that “diseases know no borders,” but COVID-19 has once again shown that policy responses certainly do. Governments have implemented bordering practices in a variety of ways to ensure that their own citizens are protected, even when in direct contravention to the International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005. The IHR and the World Health Organization (WHO) have a strong preference for borders to remain open. Yet, we argue here, non-compliance by WHO member states is not the only problem with the IHR's treatment of borders. Bringing insights from critical border studies and exploring the varied ways in which the response to the COVID-19 crisis has been “bordered,” we argue that a much broader understanding of “borders” is required in the IHR and by the WHO, given that much of the exclusionary bordering we find takes place away from physical points of entry.
{"title":"The International Health Regulations, COVID-19, and bordering practices: Who gets in, what gets out, and who gets rescued?","authors":"Adam Ferhani, Simon Rushton","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1771955","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1771955","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is often said that “diseases know no borders,” but COVID-19 has once again shown that policy responses certainly do. Governments have implemented bordering practices in a variety of ways to ensure that their own citizens are protected, even when in direct contravention to the International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005. The IHR and the World Health Organization (WHO) have a strong preference for borders to remain open. Yet, we argue here, non-compliance by WHO member states is not the only problem with the IHR's treatment of borders. Bringing insights from critical border studies and exploring the varied ways in which the response to the COVID-19 crisis has been “bordered,” we argue that a much broader understanding of “borders” is required in the IHR and by the WHO, given that much of the exclusionary bordering we find takes place away from physical points of entry.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"41 1","pages":"458 - 477"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2020-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1771955","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47766014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：