Securitisation and Diego Garcia

Salter, Mark B.; Mutlu, Can E.

doi:10.1017/s0260210512000587

Cited by 29 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I also consider argumentation. The potential for issues to become desecuritized and openly discussed in public has been widely recognized (for example, Salter and Mutlu, 2013) and my focus on argumentation is partly chosen to interrogate the success of the myriad of securitizing and desecuritizing moves that took place to justify or challenge the bill. Furthermore, Thierry Balsacq (2015: 1–10) has written on the importance of legitimacy in the complex relations between securitizing actor and referent object.…”

Section: Methodology and Outline Of Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

The UK Justice and Security Bill 2012–2013: Using secrecy to legitimize the securitization of the law

Pope

2017

Media, War & Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Justice and Security Act of 2013 provides for closed hearings in civil cases involving security sensitive information. The author argues that the UK Government successfully created and reinforced the authority of secretive sources to ensure the Bill was passed. Such authoritative sources promoted imaginaries of a future attack but also the need to respect legal principles that protected members of ‘our’ community. The dynamics between these imaginaries and principles led to the passing of the Bill in its final form – approving closed procedures in court, but removing inquests and issues of the ‘public interest’ from the Bill. Moreover, deliberation of the Bill was represented as negotiated and rational, thereby providing the final Act with legitimacy in elite fields. This research outlines how secrecy may not only be an end-goal of securitization moves, but reference to secret intelligence can also be integral to the justification of these moves.

show abstract

Section: Methodology and Outline Of Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

The UK Justice and Security Bill 2012–2013: Using secrecy to legitimize the securitization of the law

Pope

2017

Media, War & Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the discursive construction of historical memory as a security issue constitutes merely a securitizing move, whereby attempts are made to frame a particular historical remembrance as an issue that cannot be debated, a ‘memory law’ already amounts to a specific security practice, a definite measure that sets firmly the limits to the permitted public remembrance of a particular historical event or legacy (cf. Salter and Mutlu, 2013: 816, fn. 4).…”

Section: The Securitization Of Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Memory must be defended’: Beyond the politics of mnemonical security

Mälksoo

2015

Security Dialogue

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This article supplements and extends the ontological security theory in International Relations (IR) by conceptualizing the notion of mnemonical security. It engages critically the securitization of memory as a means of making certain historical remembrances secure by delegitimizing or outright criminalizing others. The securitization of historical memory by means of law tends but to reproduce a sense of insecurity among its contesters. To move beyond the politics of mnemonical security, two lines of action are outlined in the paper: (i) the desecuritization of social remembrance in order to allow for its repoliticization, and (ii) the rethinking of the Self-Other relationship in mnemonic conflicts. A radically democratic, agonistic memory politics is called for that would cease from the knee-jerk treatment of the issues of identity, memory and history as problems of security. Rather than trying to secure the insecurable, a genuinely agonistic mnemonic pluralism would enable to question different interpretations of the past, instead of pre-defining national or regional positions on legitimate remembrance in ontological security terms. IntroductionJust like families should have the right to complete their own photo albums, such a right should also be reserved for states and nations. Otherwise we would be asked to undress ourselves completely, so that our identity could be utterly destroyed. ...attacks on the identity [are] targeted in the first place [at] ...the most important part of our identity Ð its core part. The core part is made of our inheritance. Of what we are and what is our inherent being like. That is precisely why all states, nations and people hold dear the story of their origins and inception...We should not deceive ourselves that our perseverance could be guaranteed exclusively with the sword of truth (Aaviksoo, 2011). Besides raising major ontological and epistemological questions about determining the limits of a collective 'self', anthropomorphizing the state and its collective 'memory', we are presented with a vision of the world where war serves as a key for understanding politics. 'Our memory must be defended' emerges as a variation of the omnipresent security-discourse, as yet another ringtone of the familiar 'society must be defended '-logic (see Foucault, 2003). Pursuing the security of the biographical self-narrative of the state (Berenskoetter, 2014) (of which mnemonical narratives occupy a central place) 1 as part of the state«s security policy invites us 1 Cf. the concepts of ontological narratives (which are used to define who we are, which, in turn, can be a precondition on knowing what to do) and public narratives (Somers, 1994:618-619).

show abstract

“…Meaning, for how long does an issue retain the status of a security issue? In response, many empirical studies on securitization and de-securitization (Donnelly, 2015; Salter and Mutlu, 2013) have indicated that since political and social situations are constantly evolving—especially in post-conflict and transitioning contexts—it is difficult to identify a definitive end point for either of the processes.…”

Section: De-securitization and The Construction Of Silence(s) In Post...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The violent construction of silence(s): The case of targeted killings in North Waziristan, Pakistan

Khan

2024

Violence: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The threat of recurrence of violence remains a protracted concern in post-conflict contexts. This article contributes to the literature on post-conflict violence by analyzing a specific phenomenon that has characterized North Waziristan: the “Taliban target killing campaign” of civilians. The article argues that the targeted killings in (post-conflict) North Waziristan are a pre-mediated and calculated strategy employed by the militants to create space for their resurgence by silencing dissent through extortion, threats and killing of the locals. Exploring post-conflict violence, the article draws attention to the application of de-securitization in North Waziristan where “silent institutional” de-securitizations (i.e., state silence) are adopted to maintain the post-conflict fragile peace to prevent the risk of slippage into re-securitization. In explicating this, the article contributes by identifying three forms of silences: (i) silencing (by killing), (ii) state silence, and (iii) strategic silence. Doing so also helps to elaborate the function, meaning, and consequence of silence(s) in post-conflict contexts.

show abstract

Securitisation and Diego Garcia

Cited by 29 publications

References 31 publications

The UK Justice and Security Bill 2012–2013: Using secrecy to legitimize the securitization of the law

The UK Justice and Security Bill 2012–2013: Using secrecy to legitimize the securitization of the law

‘Memory must be defended’: Beyond the politics of mnemonical security

The violent construction of silence(s): The case of targeted killings in North Waziristan, Pakistan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About