This article theorises the simultaneous enaction of securitising and desecuritising moves. It argues that the frequent simultaneity of these two processes, which are normally considered mutually exclusive within Securitisation Theory (ST), has previously gone unnoticed given a set of methodological, temporal, and ontological biases that have developed within ST. Demonstrating how these biases can be overcome – and even reconciled with the seminal texts of ST – by drawing on work from within social theory and elsewhere, we argue that the frequent simultaneity of (de)securitising moves most urgently requires us to reconsider the normative status of desecuritisation within ST. Although desecuritisation has traditionally been viewed as normatively positive, we argue that its temporally immanent enaction alongside securitising moves might introduce more violence into security politics and, in fact, exacerbate protracted conflicts. Ultimately, we make the normative ambitions of some within ST more opaque. Desecuritisation is not a shortcut to the ethical-political good within ST.
Since the inception of International Relations (IR) within university departments, its disciplinary status has been the subject of constant debate. Yet, the current literature on ‘the state of the discipline’ silences this debate either through IR’s assumed disciplinarity or conflation of debates about theory with the existence of IR. This Forum moves beyond this literature by explicitly engaging whether IR is a discipline or not and by enquiring how this status matters. Contributors rely on the sociology and philosophy of social science to call into question or affirm the disciplinarity of IR to argue whether IR is as a subfield of Political Science, a full-blown and autonomous discipline, or a hybrid field of interdisciplinary studies. Furthermore, contributors reveal the implications of the different disciplinary statuses regarding the academic institution, interdisciplinary possibilities and modes of organizing IR. Overall, these contributions aim to engage rather than close the disciplinary debate, creating further space for reflection.
As the contributions to this Forum show, the debate over the identity of International Relations (IR) is passionate, complex and, perhaps even as the title heralds, a 'struggle'. 'Struggle' may refer to the difficulty of coming to terms with IR itself or to disagreements
This article contributes to problem solving, design, and planning in defence organisations by arguing that a ‘problem’ or a ‘challenge’ is never objective, natural or ready-made. Challenges are contingent to the conditions under which individuals perceive and formulate them. As a result, this article understands ‘challenges’ and ‘approaches’ to address them as co-dependent on one another. This article recommends that officers should attempt to generate the most interesting and, we hope, innovative problem-solution pair or challenge-approach pair in order to integrate this insight into practice when problem solving, designing, or planning. Leaders and their teams can learn to inhabit this mind-set by finding inspiration in three modes observed through practice: initial challenge framing, challenge curation and co-evolution. For each of these modes, the article proposes reflexive methods and tools for enhancing introspection in challenge framing and formulation namely the Five Whys, question-storming, and loyal opposition. The article supports these recommendations and methods through insights gleaned from philosophy of knowledge, design theory, and on design experiences with the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) in 2019.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.