Environment and security: Global eco-politics and Brazilian deforestation

Securitization and the Construction of Security

“…For Doty, changing approaches to the treatment of Haitian refugees by the US government in the 1990s can primarily -and contra the Copenhagen School -be understood as a change in the way security itself was understood. And I have suggested elsewhere (McDonald, 2003) that significant change in the Brazilian government's approach to Amazonian deforestation in the late 1980s -from conceptualizing the intact rainforest as a threat to Brazil to positioning it as that in need of being protected as part of Brazil -can be better understood as a change in perceptions or discourses of security rather than as an instance of 'de-securitization'. Here, articulations of the values in need of being protected were more prominent -and I would suggest more politically significant -than articulations of 'from what or whom we need protection'.…”

Climate change and the nuclear securitisation of UK energy policy

“…Others signal the importance of looking at context and the interests involved that have attempted to utilise discourses of securitisation to their advantage (McDonald 2003, Floyd 2010. 'Why then, and in that context, did a particular actor represent an issue as an existential threat, and more importantly why was that actor supported in that securitization by a particular constituency?'…”

The Politics of Exceptionalism: Securitization and COVID-19

“…However, neither of these claims is necessarily proven. The securitization literature is characterized by contestation over the precise effects of securitizing language, particularly in terms of its direct production of emergency measures (McDonald 2008;Vuori 2017). A substantive body of work within this field has highlighted the need to add considerations of context, audience, and even other securitizing actors to adequately capture this process (Bigo 2002;Balzacq 2005;McDonald 2008;Trombetta 2008;Ciuta 2009).…”

“…The securitization literature is characterized by contestation over the precise effects of securitizing language, particularly in terms of its direct production of emergency measures (McDonald 2008;Vuori 2017). A substantive body of work within this field has highlighted the need to add considerations of context, audience, and even other securitizing actors to adequately capture this process (Bigo 2002;Balzacq 2005;McDonald 2008;Trombetta 2008;Ciuta 2009). And the literature around exceptionalism has revealed that the decisionist and illiberal extreme identified by Schmitt is not the only form it can take, with more nuanced forms between "normality" and "exception"-such as risk and its management-evident (Abrahamsen 2005, 59;Johns 2005;Neocleous 2006;Doty 2007Doty , 2009Neal 2009;Kirk 2020).…”

“…And the literature around exceptionalism has revealed that the decisionist and illiberal extreme identified by Schmitt is not the only form it can take, with more nuanced forms between "normality" and "exception"-such as risk and its management-evident (Abrahamsen 2005, 59;Johns 2005;Neocleous 2006;Doty 2007Doty , 2009Neal 2009;Kirk 2020). Indeed, some have even presented competing understandings of security that take the base idea of exceptionalism and suggest more beneficial manifestations (Doty 1998;McDonald 2003;Williams 2015). This all suggests a compelling rationale to systematically examine the relationship between the representation of COVID-19 as a security threat on one hand and the emergency measures that have been enacted on the other.…”