In its broadest and academic term, “security” has been defined contemporarily by Buzan and Wæver (1998) as being that special type of politics in which specified developments are socially constructed threats, having an existential quality to cover values and/or assets of human collectivities and leading to a call for emergency measures. However, surveying the old traditional perceptions of security dating back from Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, to Rousseau, Kant, Kautilya, to Hobbes, Machiavelli and to Morgenthau, I found out a linkage of a security study in answering human’s physiological needs that is interpreted in varied disciplines from Philosophy, Political Science to International Relations. Their arguments were presented in the study done by Solidum et al (1991, p. 13-16), to Plato such path leading to security was presented in his ideal republic. The total security, both spiritual and material, was brought about the creation of a new society and all its institutions based on the right principles of social existence. Plato related these principles to the idea of the universal Good as governing nature.
For Aristotle the quest for security was connected with his idea of fullness of being and ideal nature. This took the form of instinctive striving after perfection as embodied in the species. In the area of man’s social or political life, security arrangements manifested themselves in certain types of social systems said to be harmony with nature or in conformity with man’s striving after full development of himself or the Good’s life. For Confucius security was associated with commitments to certain universal principles of conduct. The ultimate aim was to bring about a condition of universal social harmony and stability. Goodness of human nature was often assumed which, if damaged, could be restored mainly by proper education.
Table of Contents
1. Historical and Philosophical Bases of Security Studies
2. The Copenhagen School on securitization framework: Conceptualization of the theory
3. The Singaporean School on securitization framework: Defining an Asian perspective
4. Conclusion: A critique both on the Copenhagen and Singapore securitization frameworks
Objectives and Topics
This seminar paper explores the evolution of security studies, examining how security is conceptualized beyond traditional power paradigms into non-traditional domains. The primary objective is to analyze the process of securitization by comparing the Copenhagen School's social-constructivist framework with the Singaporean School's emphasis on Asian regional contexts and policy effectiveness.
- Historical evolution of security perceptions from classical philosophy to contemporary International Relations.
- The Copenhagen School's theory of securitization, emphasizing the "speech act."
- Key components of securitization: securitizing actors, referent objects, and the role of the audience.
- Critique of the Copenhagen School's limitations, particularly regarding empirical research and policy application in Asia.
- The necessity of contextualizing security threats and the move toward non-traditional security (NTS) challenges.
Excerpt from the book
The Copenhagen School on securitization framework: Conceptualization of the theory
Caballero-Anthony and Emmers (p. 21-23) asserted that the CS, a body of research mainly associated with the work of Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, has developed a relevant instrument to conceptualize the theory of securitization. This theory outlines the political nature of “doing” security and challenges the traditional approach to security - concerned with identifying and dealing with supposedly self-evident threats - and introduces a social-constructivist perspective that considers how problems are transformed into security issues. Securitization is the successful process of labeling an issue a security issue and results in the transformation of the way of dealing with it. This transformation has relevant implications; through the label “security” problems are turned into existential threats that require exceptional, emergency measures, which may include breaking otherwise binding rules or governing by decrees rather than by democratic decisions. Haacke (2007, p. 3) simply puts that to securitize an issue is to present as urgent and existential, as so important that it should not be exposed to the normal haggling of politics but should be dealt with decisively by top leaders prior to other issues.
Summary of Chapters
1. Historical and Philosophical Bases of Security Studies: This chapter traces the conceptual roots of security from classical thinkers like Plato and Hobbes to contemporary definitions, highlighting the shift toward social construction and existential threats.
2. The Copenhagen School on securitization framework: Conceptualization of the theory: This section details the core components of the Copenhagen School, specifically the "speech act," and how framing issues as security matters justifies exceptional political measures.
3. The Singaporean School on securitization framework: Defining an Asian perspective: This chapter identifies the limitations of the Copenhagen School, proposing a framework that accounts for regional Asian contexts, empirical research, and policy effectiveness.
4. Conclusion: A critique both on the Copenhagen and Singapore securitization frameworks: This final chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that while both schools provide foundational insights, the effectiveness of extraordinary responses to securitized threats requires further empirical investigation.
Keywords
Securitization, Copenhagen School, Singaporean School, International Relations, Non-Traditional Security, Speech Act, Existential Threat, Security Studies, Human Security, Social-Constructivism, Referent Object, Securitizing Actor, Political Discourse, Foreign Policy, Regional Security.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper examines how issues in international politics are transformed into security issues through the process of "securitization," exploring the evolution of this concept from traditional to non-traditional security.
What are the central themes discussed in the text?
The central themes include the philosophical history of security, the social construction of threats, the mechanics of the "speech act," and the comparative analysis of European and Asian approaches to security theorization.
What is the primary objective of the author?
The author aims to provide a clear overview of securitization theory, compare the frameworks of the Copenhagen and Singaporean schools, and guide students in constructing their own research on specific security issues.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The paper uses a theoretical and comparative research methodology, analyzing existing academic literature (secondary research) to critique and expand upon current securitization paradigms.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the history of security, the specific terminologies of the Copenhagen School (actors, referent objects, audience), and the critique of these concepts through the lens of the Singaporean School’s research project on Non-Traditional Security.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Securitization, Copenhagen School, Speech Act, Non-Traditional Security (NTS), Existential Threat, and International Relations.
How does the author define the "speech act" in the context of securitization?
The author describes it as the primary reality of the securitization process, where the mere utterance of "security" by a representative actor shifts an issue into a domain requiring exceptional, urgent action.
What does the Singaporean School criticize about the Copenhagen School?
The Singaporean School identifies a lack of empirical research, insufficient attention to policy effectiveness, and a Euro-centric bias that complicates the application of the theory in Asian regional settings.
What role does the audience play in successful securitization?
The audience is crucial; securitization is only complete when the securitizing actor successfully convinces the specific or significant audience (such as the public or policymakers) that a referent object faces an existential threat.
- Quote paper
- Nassef M. Adiong (Author), 2009, Securitization, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/125925
