(In)Security and the Production of International Relations

How does war become a legitimate undertaking? Re-engaging the post-structuralist foundation of securitization theory

“…On the one hand, Stritzel (2007, 2014) and Balzacq (2005, 2011) respectively bracket what they call potential ‘internalist’ or ‘philosophical’ variants associated with post-structuralist traditions and champion an ‘externalist’ and ‘sociological’ version of ST. On the other hand, Croft’s (2012) and Hagmann’s (2015) works dovetail theoretically with the post-structuralist reading of ST which is presented here in that they emphasize the productivity of discourse and the identity dynamics implicit in securitizations, but they also depart from this contribution in important ways. 2 Because they want to understand foreign policy production in general and how securitization effects everyday life, both Hagmann (2015: 17–18) and Croft (2012) are uncomfortable with post-structuralism’s focus on radical binary oppositions when theorizing the production of identity and, consequently, ST’s focus on posing threats as ‘existential’. But for the purposes of understanding how war becomes acceptable, the focus on radical otherness and existential threat is crucial.…”

“…Thus, the re-defining of identity in the face of existential threat can have substantial effects in terms of cohesion, power and stability within the referent object. With this move ST can be used to say something more about ‘how political communities themselves are constituted’, as called for by McDonald (2008: 565; see also critique by Hagmann, 2015: 27). In particular, it can shed light on how securitization for war becomes the key engine in the production of national identity.…”

“…The recognition of existential threat implicit in a securitization creates a particular situation of urgency , and thus seems to require action by competent actors who, in turn, are empowered to act by this situation. As put by Hagmann (2015: 22) securitization provides both points of reference for agency and asks for agency at the same time.…”

“…This article contributes to the efforts by the ‘second generation securitization theory post-Copenhagen School’ to specify and developed the theory into more distinct and coherent variants of securitization and to make it applicable to understand a wider range of cases and situations (Balzacq, 2005, 2011; Croft, 2012; Donnelly, 2013; Floyd, 2010; Hagmann, 2015; McDonald, 2008; Salter, 2008; Stritzel, 2007, 2014; Taureck, 2006; Vuori, 2008). But it also differs from the core contributions to this second-generation literature.…”

“…The launching of violent measures on a scale such as war against an object, a territory or a social group hinges critically on representations of radical otherness. Similarly, while Hagmann (2015: 18) draws on ST despite the strong emphasis on the way in which naming threats as existential gives way to extraordinary – that is, norm-breaking – powers, this framework draws on it because of this emphasis on extraordinary force. War and violence is necessarily dramatically norm-breaking, particularly when it is levelled by the state against its own citizens, as in the case presented in this article.…”