Securitisation of Climate Change: The Risk of Exaggeration

Warner, Jeroen; Boas, Ingrid

doi:10.1590/1809-4422asocex0003v2022017

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first two papers draw on the existing discourse and language of disasters significantly to illustrate the ways in which they are employed by those in power. In fact, using the language of disasters and catastrophe to push domination and control (Warner, 2013;Warner and Boas, 2017) is not a process unique to natural hazardbased disasters. Instead, as Charlie Whittaker et al's engagement with literature on health 'disasters' demonstrates, such 'crises' and 'epidemics' enabled European imperial expansion into the Americas, helped to maintain the United Kingdom's highly unequal relations with its former colonies, and has been employed to assert the geopolitical hegemony of the United States.…”

Section: When 'Securitisation' Helps De-politicise Disastersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disasters in conflict areas: finding the politics

Siddiqi

2018

Disasters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite some 50 years of research, relatively little is known about how disasters in conflict areas are created and discursively framed, and how information on them is publicly consumed. The emphasis in disaster studies has remained on establishing causal linkages, demonstrating the way in which natural hazard-related disasters result in deepening conflict, or ushering in peace. Furthermore, it has been accepted that disaster risk reduction is the state's responsibility. The strengths and limitations of these approaches are examined prior to a political reimagining of disasters in conflict areas. The absence of 'politics' from the wider debate on disasters in conflict areas is not just a benign oversight, but is in fact the politics of disasters in conflict areas. A politics that does not engage with the processes and outcomes of pursuing dominant agendas, such as neoliberal orthodoxy and state imperial control, in areas and communities vulnerable to natural hazards and political conflict needs to be recognised and challenged.

show abstract

Section: When 'Securitisation' Helps De-politicise Disastersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disasters in conflict areas: finding the politics

Siddiqi

2018

Disasters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the evidence is certainly anecdotal rather than systematic, the present authors’ interactions with local “policy workers” on climate adaptation suggest adaptive policies are not formulated at the ecosystem or basin level, but are developed “on the hoof” at a very applied scale (Wesselink & Gouldson, 2014). Rooting AM in everyday performance puts the spotlight on professionals’ practical wisdom (Frerks et al, ; Sharma, ; Warner & Boas, ), or phronesis , a concept coined long ago by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (cf. Gunder, ).…”

Section: Am Prescriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of adaptive climate management: Scientific recipes and lived reality

Warner

Wesselink

Geldof³

2018

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While excited about the ground‐breaking work coming out of the epistemic community promoting adaptive (climate) management (AM), we worry about its tendency to ignore normative implications originating in the implicit worldviews underlying AM literature. Generally, AM has a “green” ideology and focuses on the bioregion as the only sensible level for analysis and action. This tendency for systemic functionalism of AM‐as‐(green)‐policy‐prescription depoliticizes an issue (“what to do about climate change”) that is political through and through. For example, those who stand to lose their livelihood as a result of AM plans or simply cannot adapt so fast may resist AM propositions. Implementing AM in practice thereby often leads to social and institutional engineering to overcome resistance. AM in academia seems quite far removed from the “real worlds” of social deliberation and praxis where policy is made and implemented, and where other values and interests than those implicit in AM prevail. We therefore highlight the importance of practices on the ground, claiming AM is not achieved by bioregional policies, but developed “on the hoof” at locally appropriate scales. Everyday professional work is characterized by “organized improvisation” where tacit professional and experiential knowledge are of prime importance. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Institutions for Adaptation

show abstract

“…What can be described as a ‘process of revalidation’ is required to remain securitised (Kamradt‐Scott and McInnes, )—for those who deem an issue to be just that. Interestingly, on the international stage, while the attempts by the UK to (re)frame climate change under a security lens resonated with some countries, including small island developing states, and were contested by others, such as Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa, one can contend that the ‘securitising move’ was opposed; one rebuttal being not to exaggerate the security implications of climate change (Warner and Boas, , p. 214).…”

Section: Evidence From Cases: the Un Security Council And Uk Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been much analysis since 2007 of whether or not climate change has been securitised (Trombetta, 2008;Youngs, 2014, Peters andMayhew, 2016;Warner and Boas, 2017). The growing body of literature examining the inclusion of climate change in security policy, from a national, regional and international perspective, includes the European Union (EU) (Youngs, 2014), the UK (Peters and Mayhew, 2016), and the UN Security Council (Sindico, 2007).…”

Section: Securitisation Applied To Climate Change and Disasters: Terrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disasters, climate change, and securitisation: the United Nations Security Council and the United Kingdom's security policy

Peters

2018

Disasters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since climate change was included on the United Nations Security Council's agenda in 2007, there has been much debate about whether or not it has been securitised. This paper starts from the premise that climate change has undergone a partial securitisation-that is, a gradual process wherein political choices are made to frame certain issues in particular ways. Climate change has been reframed from a purely developmental and environmental concern to one that impels foreign policy and security domains. This paper makes a novel contribution to disasters, climate change, and security studies by arguing that explicit and implicit links to natural hazard-related disasters have been employed as part of a gradual process of securitisation, or, more specifically, the partial securitisation of climate change. This is demonstrated by drawing on two cases: United Nations Security Council debates between 2007 and 2017; and the United Kingdom's security policy between 1997 and 2017.

show abstract

Securitisation of Climate Change: The Risk of Exaggeration

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Disasters in conflict areas: finding the politics

Disasters in conflict areas: finding the politics

The politics of adaptive climate management: Scientific recipes and lived reality

Disasters, climate change, and securitisation: the United Nations Security Council and the United Kingdom's security policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About