This study argues that the Copenhagen School’s conceptualisation of global security tends to favour a ‘negative’ version of security, fathomed as security from existential threats, supporting the traditional notion of security as survival. This isolates health issues from their systemic causes, instigating responsive mechanisms rather than preventative policies. Accordingly, substantial attention and resources are directed towards communicable, rather than non-communicable and chronic, diseases.
The study also claims that this way of conceptualising security conjures the understanding of health via the prism of state interests, as pandemic and communicable diseases are perceived to pose potential threats to state security. Thus, securitisation practice bequeaths priority to state security over human security, and therefore fails to tackle the structural causes of global health inequalities that produce and reproduce these pandemics.
This study is divided into two parts: the first critically analyses the theoretical framework of securitisation. It methodically examines securitisation assumptions of Barry Buzan, Jaap de Wilde and Ole Waever (1998); the strengths of the securitisation framework, particularly in securitising health; and limitations of the securitisation theory to understanding global health issues. These analyses set the context for the second part of the study, ‘Ebola case study in West Africa - Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone’. The Ebola case study particularly demonstrates that global health issues only become security priorities when Western countries feel threatened, most especially when coined as a national security threat to the US and the UK.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Speech Act Discourse and Securitisation
2.1 Strengths and Limitations of Copenhagen School
3. Understanding the Ebola Response in West Africa: Background
3.1 From a West African Problem to a Western Problem
3.2 Global Response
3.3 Ebola Mitigation Measures
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the application of the 'speech act' theory of securitisation, as developed by the Copenhagen School, within the context of the Ebola pandemic in West Africa. It evaluates how global health issues are framed as security threats by Western powers and analyzes the implications of prioritizing state security over human security and preventative health infrastructure.
- Theoretical analysis of the Copenhagen School’s securitisation framework.
- Critique of the 'negative' security paradigm in global health.
- Examination of the transition from a regional epidemic to a Western national security priority.
- Evaluation of the effectiveness and limitations of emergency response containment strategies.
- Analysis of the structural health inequalities in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
Excerpt from the Book
Speech Act Discourse and Securitisation
Buzan et al.’s (1998) seminal work, Security: a new framework of analysis, adopted a ‘speech act’ approach to security study, broadening the security agenda to include threats beyond traditional state-centric and military conceptions of security. To include individuals, sub-state groups, and global concerns such as the environment that were marginalised by the traditional notion of security, Buzan et al. (also known as the Copenhagen School) developed a distinct perspective in the security debate, treating security as a social process outcome, rather than an objective condition. This inter-subjective nature of representing social issues as security threats is performed by securitising ‘speech acts’, grounded on J. L. Austin’s speech act theory, which argued language is not only used to describe or convey a meaning but also to constitute a form of action or a social activity (Austin, 1962; Buzan, Waever, & de Wilde, 1998). For instance, a speaker saying “thank you,” “you are fired” or “I nominate,” is employing “language not just for the purposes of description, but also for actually doing something else with wider social significance – hence the term speech acts” (Elbe, 2010, p. 11). Subsequently, constructing who or what is being secured, and from what, develops from a securitising speech act through which a particular threat becomes represented and recognised (Williams, 2003, p. 513). This implies that there are choices involved in deciding which issues are to be labelled as security threats.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This chapter introduces the research context, questioning the appropriateness of applying securitisation theory to health crises and setting the scope for the analysis of the Ebola pandemic.
Speech Act Discourse and Securitisation: This section explains the theoretical foundations of the Copenhagen School and discusses the strengths and limitations of viewing security as a 'speech act'.
Understanding the Ebola Response in West Africa: Background: This chapter provides the situational context of the Ebola outbreak and examines the shifting perceptions of the disease from a regional issue to an existential threat to the West.
Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the main arguments, reaffirming the critique of the selective, reactive nature of the current securitisation model and advocating for preventative health infrastructure.
Keywords
Securitisation, Copenhagen School, Ebola, Health Security, Speech Act, Global Health, Human Security, West Africa, State Interests, Pandemic, Existential Threat, Preventive Policy, Infectious Disease, International Relations, Biomedical Challenge.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The work explores how the concept of 'securitisation'—as defined by the Copenhagen School—is applied to global health issues, specifically using the Ebola outbreak in West Africa as a primary case study.
What are the central themes discussed in this publication?
The core themes include the social construction of security threats, the tension between state security and human security, the Eurocentric nature of international health responses, and the failure of reactive containment strategies.
What is the main objective of the paper?
The goal is to determine the utility and limitations of the 'speech act' discourse of securitisation when applied to global health, arguing that current frameworks prioritize Western state interests over local, preventative health needs.
Which theoretical approach does the author use?
The author utilizes the critical security studies framework, specifically the 'speech act' theory as propounded by Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde (the Copenhagen School).
How is the main body of the text structured?
The study is divided into two main parts: the first provides a theoretical critique of the securitisation framework, and the second applies this analysis to the Ebola outbreak in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Key terms include Securitisation, Ebola, Health Security, Copenhagen School, and Global Health Politics.
How did the perception of the Ebola outbreak change over time?
The pandemic was initially viewed as a localized West African problem. It was only framed as an existential threat requiring emergency international intervention after Western citizens became infected and national security concerns in the US and UK were triggered.
Does the author support the current securitisation of health?
The author is critical, arguing that framing health issues as national security threats encourages reactive containment measures (like quarantine) while neglecting the fundamental, systemic issues of weak healthcare infrastructure that facilitate disease spread.
What role did the World Health Organization (WHO) play according to the author?
The paper argues that the WHO acted as a 'securitising actor', but notes that their actions were selective and seemingly tied to the activation of Western concerns following cases involving Western nationals.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Divine S. K. Agbeti (Autor:in), 2015, Understanding the Ebola Response in West Africa. Utility of the "Speech Act" Discourse of Securitisation, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/345046
