Distinctions, distinctions: ‘public’ and ‘private’ force?

Abstract

This article evaluates recent literatures within International Relations on so‐called ‘private force’. It suggests that the conceptual weaknesses of much of this literature can be accounted for, in part, by a misunderstanding of the historical and sociological importance of the way power is organized and legitimated through shifts in the public—private distinction. This distinction is one of the primary mechanisms, if not the primary mechanism, for organizing political, economic and, therefore, military power. For the sake of historical accuracy and conceptual integrity scholars should abandon the terminology of ‘public’ and ‘private’ force. Tracing how public‐private distinctions shift and change as an effect of political power is a joint task for historical sociology and international political theory

Private Security and the Public-Private Divide: Contested Lines of Distinction and Modes of Governance in the Stockholm-Arlanda Security Assemblage1

“…Despite the changing patterns of security governance in modern liberal democracies like Sweden (and although clear‐cut distinctions between the private and the public clearly exist only in theory), these lines remain firmly etched into common public political imaginaries (Owens 2008; Lahav 2009; Walker 2010). 9 Yet a simple acceptance of the public–private (or domestic–global) divides as a way of understanding the challenges posed by PSCs is insufficient.…”

“…6 6 For discussions of the foundational public–private distinction, see the studies by Lahav (2009), Johnston (1992:24–44), Owens (2008), Stenning (2009), and Zedner (2009:53). …”

“…Yet within the fields of International Relations (IR) and Security Studies, the subject has only fairly recently begun to attract attention, notably in the context of armed conflict (Singer 2003;Avant 2005;Kinsey 2006;Berndtsson 2009;Krahmann 2010). See the studies by Aradau and van Munster (2009) and Owens (2008) for discussion on the intersections of criminology and IR. 6 For discussions of the foundational public-private distinction, see the studies by Lahav (2009), Johnston (1992, Owens (2008), Stenning (2009), andZedner (2009:53).…”

“…See the studies by Aradau and van Munster (2009) and Owens (2008) for discussion on the intersections of criminology and IR. 6 For discussions of the foundational public-private distinction, see the studies by Lahav (2009), Johnston (1992, Owens (2008), Stenning (2009), andZedner (2009:53). 7 The LFV was renamed Swedavia on April 1, 2010.…”

How is rape a weapon of war? Feminist International Relations, modes of critical explanation and the study of wartime sexual violence

“…of war, just as feminists fought to make rape in times of nominal peace a matter for public concern (Brownmiller, 1975;Bourke, 2007 (Harrington, 2010;Elshtain, 1995;Enloe, 1996;Owens, 2008).…”