COVID-19大流行与拉脱维亚与俄罗斯关系:去证券化还是进一步证券化的前景?

IF 0.6 1区哲学 Q4 ETHICS Philosophy of the Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.3390/socsci10090323

Māris Andžāns, U. Bērziņa-Čerenkova

{"title":"COVID-19大流行与拉脱维亚与俄罗斯关系:去证券化还是进一步证券化的前景?","authors":"Māris Andžāns, U. Bērziņa-Čerenkova","doi":"10.3390/socsci10090323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article revisits the traditionally jittery Latvian–Russian relations during the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of securitization. Though the pandemic might have offered less space for confrontation and possible prospects for differentiation of (de)securitization vectors, the mutual securitization processes have continued in the vein of previous years. Furthermore, they have showed no signs of easing as not only have the traditional issues remained securitized but new thematic areas both related and unrelated to the pandemic have taken center stage. All in all, the pandemic has opened new avenues for securitization, though it had no fundamental impact on the established securitization trends.","PeriodicalId":46776,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","volume":"16 1","pages":"323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The COVID-19 Pandemic and Latvia–Russia Relations: Landscape for Desecuritization or Further Securitization?\",\"authors\":\"Māris Andžāns, U. Bērziņa-Čerenkova\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/socsci10090323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article revisits the traditionally jittery Latvian–Russian relations during the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of securitization. Though the pandemic might have offered less space for confrontation and possible prospects for differentiation of (de)securitization vectors, the mutual securitization processes have continued in the vein of previous years. Furthermore, they have showed no signs of easing as not only have the traditional issues remained securitized but new thematic areas both related and unrelated to the pandemic have taken center stage. All in all, the pandemic has opened new avenues for securitization, though it had no fundamental impact on the established securitization trends.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of the Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"323\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of the Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10090323\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10090323","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

摘要

本文通过证券化的视角，回顾了新冠疫情期间拉脱维亚与俄罗斯传统上紧张不安的关系。虽然大流行病可能没有提供对抗的空间，也没有提供区分(非)证券化媒介的可能前景，但相互证券化进程仍在延续前几年的风格。此外，它们没有显示出缓和的迹象，因为不仅传统问题仍然是证券化的，而且与大流行病有关和无关的新主题领域已成为中心议题。总而言之，大流行病为证券化开辟了新的途径，尽管它对既定的证券化趋势没有根本影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Latvia–Russia Relations: Landscape for Desecuritization or Further Securitization?

This article revisits the traditionally jittery Latvian–Russian relations during the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of securitization. Though the pandemic might have offered less space for confrontation and possible prospects for differentiation of (de)securitization vectors, the mutual securitization processes have continued in the vein of previous years. Furthermore, they have showed no signs of easing as not only have the traditional issues remained securitized but new thematic areas both related and unrelated to the pandemic have taken center stage. All in all, the pandemic has opened new avenues for securitization, though it had no fundamental impact on the established securitization trends.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Philosophy of the Social Sciences Multiple-

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： For more than four decades Philosophy of the Social Sciences has served as the international, interdisciplinary forum for current research, theory and debate on the philosophical foundations of the social services. Philosophy of the Social Sciences focuses on the central issues of the social sciences, including general methodology (explaining, theorizing, testing) the application of philosophy (especially individualism versus holism), the nature of rationality and the history of theories and concepts. Among the topics you''ll explore are: ethnomethodology, evolution, Marxism, phenomenology, postmodernism, rationality, relativism, scientific methods, and textual interpretations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences'' open editorial policy ensures that you''ll enjoy rigorous scholarship on topics viewed from many different-- and often conflicting-- schools of thought. No school, party or style of philosophy of the social sciences is favoured. Debate between schools is encouraged. Each issue presents submissions by distinguished scholars from a variety of fields, including: anthropology, communications, economics, history, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Each issue brings you in-depth discussions, symposia, literature surveys, translations, and review symposia of interest both to philosophyers concerned with the social sciences and to social scientists concerned with the philosophical foundations of their subjects.