Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/16544951.2021.1926086
Desiree Lim
In Justice for People on the Move, Gillian Brock helpfully proposes a number of internal and contribution requirements, central to human rights practice, that must constrain states’ exclusion of non-citizens. On her account, failing to meet these requirements would undermine states’ claim to legitimacy. In particular, Brock persuasively shows that the USA’ travel ban on non-citizens from Muslim-majority countries violates the legitimacy constraint. Building on Brock’s framework, I analyse two other types of travel bans. In response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the US first imposed travel bans on travellers from China and Europe to prevent further transmission of the virus. More recently, the US has issued a proclamation that suspends the entry of any immigrants who purportedly risk harming the US labour market in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. Would both these travel bans meet Brock’s internal and contribution requirements for state legitimacy? I discuss these questions in my response to Brock’s book, which proceeds in this order. I begin in Section 2 by recapping the legitimacy constraints that Brock places on states’ right to exclude non-citizens: specifically, what she calls the ‘internal’ and ‘contribution’ requirements, which focus on states’ role in upholding a robust regime of human rights protections (2020: 34). I then explain Brock’s criticism of the USA’s infamous ‘Muslim ban’, which she performs through the lens of these legitimacy constraints. Next, in Section 3, I expand on two different travel bans that have been imposed in the name of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for global migration: bans on travellers from certain geographic regions (which now includes US citizens themselves), and bans on migration on the basis that it will pose a threat to local workers in the period of economic recovery. In Section 4, using Brock’s framework, I evaluate their ethical permissibility. There, I argue that regional travel bans are not only justifiable, but necessary from the perspective of legitimacy, with certain caveats. On the other hand, while travel bans on the basis of ‘economic threat’ might be permissible in theory, the US’s application has been deeply unjust in practice. I conclude in Section 5.
{"title":"Travel bans and COVID-19","authors":"Desiree Lim","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2021.1926086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2021.1926086","url":null,"abstract":"In Justice for People on the Move, Gillian Brock helpfully proposes a number of internal and contribution requirements, central to human rights practice, that must constrain states’ exclusion of non-citizens. On her account, failing to meet these requirements would undermine states’ claim to legitimacy. In particular, Brock persuasively shows that the USA’ travel ban on non-citizens from Muslim-majority countries violates the legitimacy constraint. Building on Brock’s framework, I analyse two other types of travel bans. In response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the US first imposed travel bans on travellers from China and Europe to prevent further transmission of the virus. More recently, the US has issued a proclamation that suspends the entry of any immigrants who purportedly risk harming the US labour market in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. Would both these travel bans meet Brock’s internal and contribution requirements for state legitimacy? I discuss these questions in my response to Brock’s book, which proceeds in this order. I begin in Section 2 by recapping the legitimacy constraints that Brock places on states’ right to exclude non-citizens: specifically, what she calls the ‘internal’ and ‘contribution’ requirements, which focus on states’ role in upholding a robust regime of human rights protections (2020: 34). I then explain Brock’s criticism of the USA’s infamous ‘Muslim ban’, which she performs through the lens of these legitimacy constraints. Next, in Section 3, I expand on two different travel bans that have been imposed in the name of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for global migration: bans on travellers from certain geographic regions (which now includes US citizens themselves), and bans on migration on the basis that it will pose a threat to local workers in the period of economic recovery. In Section 4, using Brock’s framework, I evaluate their ethical permissibility. There, I argue that regional travel bans are not only justifiable, but necessary from the perspective of legitimacy, with certain caveats. On the other hand, while travel bans on the basis of ‘economic threat’ might be permissible in theory, the US’s application has been deeply unjust in practice. I conclude in Section 5.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79631667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/16544951.2021.1926085
Tyler Paytas
ABSTRACT In Justice for People on the Move (2020), Gillian Brock argues that immigration bans targeting religions run afoul of international human rights agreements and practices concerning equal protection under the law, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion. Religion-targeted bans are also said to violate ethical requirements for legitimacy by not treating immigration applicants fairly and signalling the acceptability of hatred and intolerance. Brock centres her discussion around the example of the Trump administration’s 2017 Muslim ban, for which she notes additional problems such as the ban’s being motivated by dubious empirical assumptions about the risk of terrorism. I raise two challenges for Brock’s argument. I begin by asking whether banning the immigration of individuals from certain Muslim majority countries could be justified on the grounds that a large portion of the population in those countries appear to reject core liberal values such as the equal rights of women and homosexuals. This leads to my primary challenge, which concerns the practice of treating religion as a morally protected category such that discrimination based on religion is inherently impermissible. I argue that religions should be viewed as more akin to political ideologies than to morally arbitrary categories like race and sex, and that if a given religion is genuinely harmful to liberal values, an immigration ban could in principle be compatible with respect for human rights.
在《为流动中的人们伸张正义》(Justice for People on the Move, 2020)一书中，吉莉安·布洛克认为，针对宗教的移民禁令违反了国际人权协议和有关法律平等保护、良心自由和宗教自由的实践。以宗教为目标的禁令也被认为违反了合法性的道德要求，因为它没有公平地对待移民申请人，并表明仇恨和不容忍是可以接受的。布洛克以特朗普政府2017年的穆斯林禁令为例进行了讨论，她指出了其他问题，比如禁令的动机是关于恐怖主义风险的可疑经验假设。我对布洛克的观点提出了两个挑战。我首先要问，禁止来自某些穆斯林占多数的国家的个人移民是否合理，因为这些国家的很大一部分人口似乎拒绝核心的自由主义价值观，如妇女和同性恋者的平等权利。这就引出了我的主要挑战，即把宗教视为一种受道德保护的类别，从而使基于宗教的歧视本质上是不允许的。我认为，宗教应该被视为更接近于政治意识形态，而不是种族和性别等道德上武断的类别，如果某种宗教确实对自由价值观有害，那么禁止移民在原则上可以与尊重人权相一致。
{"title":"Human rights and liberal values: can religion-targeted immigration bans be justified?","authors":"Tyler Paytas","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2021.1926085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2021.1926085","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Justice for People on the Move (2020), Gillian Brock argues that immigration bans targeting religions run afoul of international human rights agreements and practices concerning equal protection under the law, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion. Religion-targeted bans are also said to violate ethical requirements for legitimacy by not treating immigration applicants fairly and signalling the acceptability of hatred and intolerance. Brock centres her discussion around the example of the Trump administration’s 2017 Muslim ban, for which she notes additional problems such as the ban’s being motivated by dubious empirical assumptions about the risk of terrorism. I raise two challenges for Brock’s argument. I begin by asking whether banning the immigration of individuals from certain Muslim majority countries could be justified on the grounds that a large portion of the population in those countries appear to reject core liberal values such as the equal rights of women and homosexuals. This leads to my primary challenge, which concerns the practice of treating religion as a morally protected category such that discrimination based on religion is inherently impermissible. I argue that religions should be viewed as more akin to political ideologies than to morally arbitrary categories like race and sex, and that if a given religion is genuinely harmful to liberal values, an immigration ban could in principle be compatible with respect for human rights.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85185261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/16544951.2021.1926082
D. Owen
ABSTRACT In this paper I focus on Gillian Brock’s treatment of the case of refugees. After noting a potential distinction between our otherwise closely related theoretical approaches in which we view the refugee regime as a legitimacy repair (Owen) or legitimacy correction (Brock) mechanism, I draw a contrast between our ways of addressing this regime and argue that the difference between my historical approach and Brock’s presentist approach turns out to have implications for how we conceive what is due to refugees. Focusing on her advocacy of a developmental turn in refugee protection, I develop the concern that her articulation of this approach remains too closely tied to the humanitarian perspective of Betts and Collier in a way that underestimates the significance of political rights to refugee autonomy.
{"title":"Refugees, legitimacy and development","authors":"D. Owen","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2021.1926082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2021.1926082","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper I focus on Gillian Brock’s treatment of the case of refugees. After noting a potential distinction between our otherwise closely related theoretical approaches in which we view the refugee regime as a legitimacy repair (Owen) or legitimacy correction (Brock) mechanism, I draw a contrast between our ways of addressing this regime and argue that the difference between my historical approach and Brock’s presentist approach turns out to have implications for how we conceive what is due to refugees. Focusing on her advocacy of a developmental turn in refugee protection, I develop the concern that her articulation of this approach remains too closely tied to the humanitarian perspective of Betts and Collier in a way that underestimates the significance of political rights to refugee autonomy.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91042780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/16544951.2021.1926084
Shelley L. Wilcox
ABSTRACT In Justice for People on the Move, Gillian Brock develops a promising, original account of migration justice. In her view, states have a robust (though conditional) right to self-determination, which includes a reasonably strong right to regulate migration. However, in order for these rights to be justified, three legitimacy requirements must be met. Most obviously, states must respect the human rights of their own citizens and the international state system itself must be legitimate. This latter condition also requires states to do their part in sustaining a justified state system, which includes helping to alleviate ‘legitimacy gaps,’ including significant human rights violations in other states. Brock uses this framework to address several pressing migration-related policy issues, including Muslim bans, the deportation of unauthorized migrants, temporary labour migration, and refugee protection. However, one topic is notably absent from her analysis: climate-related displacement. Some theorists insist that climate change migrants should not be considered refugees because they do not fit the standard definition of a refugee. In particular, climate migrants were displaced by droughts, floods, storms, or sea level rise rather than by war or persecution, and many are able to remain in their homes at present but will be forced to relocate at some point in the future. This paper explores the implications of Brock’s theory of migration justice for climate migration. I suggest that although her approach to refugee protection may initially appear to exclude climate migrants, her understanding of the right to self-determination yields strong obligations to assist them. I take this to be a strength of her framework, which makes an important, albeit indirect, contribution to current debates on climate change migration.
{"title":"Does Brock’s theory of migration justice adequately account for climate refugees?","authors":"Shelley L. Wilcox","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2021.1926084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2021.1926084","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Justice for People on the Move, Gillian Brock develops a promising, original account of migration justice. In her view, states have a robust (though conditional) right to self-determination, which includes a reasonably strong right to regulate migration. However, in order for these rights to be justified, three legitimacy requirements must be met. Most obviously, states must respect the human rights of their own citizens and the international state system itself must be legitimate. This latter condition also requires states to do their part in sustaining a justified state system, which includes helping to alleviate ‘legitimacy gaps,’ including significant human rights violations in other states. Brock uses this framework to address several pressing migration-related policy issues, including Muslim bans, the deportation of unauthorized migrants, temporary labour migration, and refugee protection. However, one topic is notably absent from her analysis: climate-related displacement. Some theorists insist that climate change migrants should not be considered refugees because they do not fit the standard definition of a refugee. In particular, climate migrants were displaced by droughts, floods, storms, or sea level rise rather than by war or persecution, and many are able to remain in their homes at present but will be forced to relocate at some point in the future. This paper explores the implications of Brock’s theory of migration justice for climate migration. I suggest that although her approach to refugee protection may initially appear to exclude climate migrants, her understanding of the right to self-determination yields strong obligations to assist them. I take this to be a strength of her framework, which makes an important, albeit indirect, contribution to current debates on climate change migration.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90754521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/16544951.2021.1926087
Gillian Brock
ABSTRACT In responding to stimulating commentaries by David Owen, Shelley Wilcox, Tyler Paytas, Desiree Lim, and Lukas Schmid I develop my model of migration justice, showing how it has the resources needed not only to deal with these challenges but also to provide a fruitful approach to a full range of contemporary migration problems.
{"title":"Travel bans, climate change, refugees and human rights: a response to my critics","authors":"Gillian Brock","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2021.1926087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2021.1926087","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In responding to stimulating commentaries by David Owen, Shelley Wilcox, Tyler Paytas, Desiree Lim, and Lukas Schmid I develop my model of migration justice, showing how it has the resources needed not only to deal with these challenges but also to provide a fruitful approach to a full range of contemporary migration problems.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86601503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/16544951.2021.1926081
Gillian Brock
ABSTRACT This is an introductory essay for a special symposium on Gillian Brock’s recent book, Justice for People on the Move: Migration in Challenging Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
{"title":"Introduction essay: migration justice in a cruel Covid-19 world","authors":"Gillian Brock","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2021.1926081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2021.1926081","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This is an introductory essay for a special symposium on Gillian Brock’s recent book, Justice for People on the Move: Migration in Challenging Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86328429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-19DOI: 10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0010
S. Lawson
This chapter offers an overview of the field of Global Political Economy (GPE)—also known as International Political Economy (IPE). It builds on themes introduced in previous chapters, including connections with theories of global politics. These are discussed from a historical perspective to enable a better appreciation of how ideas, practices, and institutions develop and interact over time. These theories arose substantially within a European context, although the extent to which these may be applied uncritically to issues of political economy in all parts of the globe must be questioned. Significant issues for GPE include trade, labour, the interaction of states and markets, the nexus between wealth and power, and the problems of development and underdevelopment in the global economy, taking particular account of the North–South gap. The chapter then discusses the twin phenomena of globalization and regionalization and the way in which these are shaping the global economy and challenging the traditional role of the state. An underlying theme of the chapter is the link between economic and political power.
{"title":"10. Global Political Economy","authors":"S. Lawson","doi":"10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter offers an overview of the field of Global Political Economy (GPE)—also known as International Political Economy (IPE). It builds on themes introduced in previous chapters, including connections with theories of global politics. These are discussed from a historical perspective to enable a better appreciation of how ideas, practices, and institutions develop and interact over time. These theories arose substantially within a European context, although the extent to which these may be applied uncritically to issues of political economy in all parts of the globe must be questioned. Significant issues for GPE include trade, labour, the interaction of states and markets, the nexus between wealth and power, and the problems of development and underdevelopment in the global economy, taking particular account of the North–South gap. The chapter then discusses the twin phenomena of globalization and regionalization and the way in which these are shaping the global economy and challenging the traditional role of the state. An underlying theme of the chapter is the link between economic and political power.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80993398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-19DOI: 10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0011
S. Lawson
This chapter studies how the scope of global politics has been extended over the last half century or so to include the impact of human industrial activity on the environment. The environmental movement and ‘green theory’ have grown out of concerns with the deleterious impact of this activity and the capacity of the planet to carry the burden of ‘business as usual’ in a world driven by the imperatives of endless growth. Many now believe that the impact on the earth’s systems is so significant that the present geological period should be recognized as the ‘Anthropocene’. Climate change is probably the most prominent issue associated with the Anthropocene at present, but it is not the only one. The chapter examines a range of issues in global environment politics, starting with the reconceptualization of the present period. It then moves on to an account of the environmental movement, the emergence of various ‘green’ ideologies and theories, and the politics of science. This is essential background for considering the role of the state and its sovereign powers in the context of global environmental politics.
{"title":"11. Global Politics in the Anthropocene","authors":"S. Lawson","doi":"10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter studies how the scope of global politics has been extended over the last half century or so to include the impact of human industrial activity on the environment. The environmental movement and ‘green theory’ have grown out of concerns with the deleterious impact of this activity and the capacity of the planet to carry the burden of ‘business as usual’ in a world driven by the imperatives of endless growth. Many now believe that the impact on the earth’s systems is so significant that the present geological period should be recognized as the ‘Anthropocene’. Climate change is probably the most prominent issue associated with the Anthropocene at present, but it is not the only one. The chapter examines a range of issues in global environment politics, starting with the reconceptualization of the present period. It then moves on to an account of the environmental movement, the emergence of various ‘green’ ideologies and theories, and the politics of science. This is essential background for considering the role of the state and its sovereign powers in the context of global environmental politics.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83867351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-19DOI: 10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0002
S. Lawson
This chapter discusses what is often regarded as the central institution, not only of domestic or national political order but also of current international or global order—the state. Alongside the state, we must also consider the idea of the nation and the ideology of nationalism—perhaps the most powerful political ideology to emerge in the modern world. There is, however, another form of international political order that has actually been far more common throughout history, and that is empire. With the rise of modernity from around the beginning of the seventeenth century, we also encounter the rise of the modern state and state system in Europe along with ideas about sovereignty, citizenship, the nation-state, and democracy. The chapter then looks at the effective globalization of the European state system through modern imperialism and colonialism and the extent to which these have been productive of contemporary global order.
{"title":"2. States, Nations, and Empires","authors":"S. Lawson","doi":"10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses what is often regarded as the central institution, not only of domestic or national political order but also of current international or global order—the state. Alongside the state, we must also consider the idea of the nation and the ideology of nationalism—perhaps the most powerful political ideology to emerge in the modern world. There is, however, another form of international political order that has actually been far more common throughout history, and that is empire. With the rise of modernity from around the beginning of the seventeenth century, we also encounter the rise of the modern state and state system in Europe along with ideas about sovereignty, citizenship, the nation-state, and democracy. The chapter then looks at the effective globalization of the European state system through modern imperialism and colonialism and the extent to which these have been productive of contemporary global order.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84925999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-19DOI: 10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0006
S. Lawson
This chapter assesses the general concept of security and the way in which issues come to be ‘securitized’. The security of the sovereign state, in a system of states, and existing under conditions of anarchy, has been the traditional focus of studies in global or international politics. Security in this context has therefore been concerned largely with the threats that states pose to each other. Over the last few decades, however, the agenda for security in global politics has expanded, and so too has its conceptualization. The chapter looks at traditional approaches to security and insecurity, revisiting the Hobbesian state of nature and tracing security thinking in global politics through to the end of the Cold War. This is followed by a discussion of ideas about collective security as embodied in the UN, paying particular attention to the role of the Security Council and the issue of intervention in the post-Cold War period. This period has also seen the broadening of the security agenda to encompass concerns such as gender security, environmental security, cyber security, and the diffuse concept of ‘human security’. Finally, the chapter provides an overview of the ‘war on terror’, raising further questions concerning how best to deal with non-conventional security threats.
{"title":"6. Security and Insecurity","authors":"S. Lawson","doi":"10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198844327.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter assesses the general concept of security and the way in which issues come to be ‘securitized’. The security of the sovereign state, in a system of states, and existing under conditions of anarchy, has been the traditional focus of studies in global or international politics. Security in this context has therefore been concerned largely with the threats that states pose to each other. Over the last few decades, however, the agenda for security in global politics has expanded, and so too has its conceptualization. The chapter looks at traditional approaches to security and insecurity, revisiting the Hobbesian state of nature and tracing security thinking in global politics through to the end of the Cold War. This is followed by a discussion of ideas about collective security as embodied in the UN, paying particular attention to the role of the Security Council and the issue of intervention in the post-Cold War period. This period has also seen the broadening of the security agenda to encompass concerns such as gender security, environmental security, cyber security, and the diffuse concept of ‘human security’. Finally, the chapter provides an overview of the ‘war on terror’, raising further questions concerning how best to deal with non-conventional security threats.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78163416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：