The Ontology of Security and its Implications for Maritime Security

Abstract

A substantial number of state and non-state actors have published strategies for maritime security and governance in the last decade. These strategies have been criticized in the sense that they do not reflect the ever-changing nature of security context. The critics mostly deal with adaptation to new risks and threats from an anthropocentric perspective. This study instead focuses on the comparison of the classical and post-classical ontologies of security. It assumes that the classical ontology of security enables certain assumptions while ignoring others. Thus, an ontological critique appears to be a necessity to address the security concerns of the complex global security context adequately. With this, this paper contributes to Christian Bueger’s maritime security matrix from a paradigm-oriented approach. As a result, the paper makes a case for the post-classical ontology of security and defines its main features as diffusion, interrelation, adaptation, non-linearity, and inclusiveness. This paper concludes that the ontological turn would be an asset for sustainable maritime security governance.

Keywords

• Anthropocene,Complexity,Ontology of Security,Maritime Security,Post-Classical Ontology

Güvenliğin Ontolojisi ve Deniz Güvenliğine Dair Çıkarımlar

Abstract

Devletler ve devlet-dışı aktörler, son on yılda, deniz güvenliği ve yönetişimi hakkında stratejiler yayımlamıştır. Ardından, bu stratejilerin, değişen güvenlik bağlamını yansıtmadığı hususunda eleştiriler ortaya çıkmıştır. Fakat bu eleştiriler, çoğunlukla, yeni risk ve tehditlerin insan-merkezci bir anlayışla stratejiye eklemlenmesiyle ilgilenmektedir. Bu çalışma ise, güvenliğin klasik ve klasik sonrası ontolojilerinin karşılaştırmasına odaklanmaktadır. Burada temel varsayım, klasik güvenlik ontolojisinin her zaman bazı varsayımları dikkate alıp bazılarını görmezden geldiği şeklindedir. Bu nedenle, ontolojik eleştiri, karmaşık küresel güvenlik ortamının güvenlik kaygılarına tam olarak yanıt vermek için gereklidir. Bu durum karşısında, bu çalışma, Christian Bueger’in deniz güvenliği matrisine de paradigma temelli bir yaklaşımla katkı sunmaktadır. Sonuçta, bu çalışma, güvenliğin klasik-sonrası ontolojisini öne çıkarmakta ve bu ontolojinin temel özelliklerini yayılma, karşılıklı ilişki, uyum, doğrusal olmama ve içerme şeklinde tanımlamaktadır. Böylesi bir ontolojik dönüşün, sürdürülebilir deniz güvenliği yönetişimi için elzem olduğu değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords

• Antroposen,Deniz Güvenliği,Güvenliğin Ontolojisi,Karmaşa,Klasik-Sonrası Ontoloji

References

1. ALGAN, Nesrin. “Environmental Security in the Aegean Sea.” In Turkish-Greek Relations: The Security Dilemma in the Aegean, edited by Mustafa Aydın and Kostas Ifantis, 185–210. London: Routledge, 2004.
2. BEKKEVOLD, Jo Inge, and Geoffrey Till, eds. International Order at Sea: How It Is Challenged, How It Is Maintained. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
3. BUEGER, Christian. “What Is Maritime Security?” Marine Policy 53 (March 2015): 159–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.005.
4. BUEGER, Christian, and Timothy Edmunds. “Beyond Seablindness: A New Agenda for Maritime Security Studies.” International Affairs 93, no. 6 (November 1, 2017): 1293–1311. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix174.
5. BUZAN, Barry. People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1983.
6. BUZAN, Barry, and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
7. CARİOU, Pierre, and Harilaos N. Psaraftis. “International Symposium on Maritime Safety, Security and Environmental Protection.” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 7, no. 1 (April 2008): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195121.
8. CHAMBERS, Matthew, and Mindy Liu. “Maritime Trade and Transportation by the Numbers.” Bureau of Transportation Statistics, nd. https://www.bts.gov/ archive/publications/by_the_numbers/maritime_trade_and_transportation/index.

9. CRUTZEN, Paul J. “Human Impact On Climate Has Made This the ‘Anthropocene Age.’” New Perspectives Quarterly 22, no. 2 (2005): 14–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5842.2005.00739.x.
10. DAVİD A. Welch. “GGOV630/PACS634/PSCI678: Security Ontology.” University of Waterloo, 2013. https://uwaterloo.ca/political-science/sites/ca.political-science/files uploads/files/P678-1139.pdf.
11. DAVİD Chandler. Resilience: The Governance of Complexity. London: Routledge, 2014.
12. DENEMARK, Robert A, Hasan Yonten, Jean-Francois Belanger, and Matthew J Hoffmann. “Diplomacy and Controversies in Global Security Studies: The Sea Power Anomaly and Soft Balancing.” Journal of Global Security Studies, October 22, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogy025.
13. EGON G. Guba, and Yvonna S. Lincoln. “Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, Third., 191–216. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2005.
14. EMMA Rothschild. “What Is Security?” Daedalus 124, no. 3 (1995): 53–98.
15. FARRELL, Henry, and Martha Finnemore. “Ontology, Methodology, and Causation in the American School of International Political Economy.” Review of International Political Economy 16, no. 1 (February 16, 2009): 58–71. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09692290802524075.
16. FLYNN, Brendan. “The EU’s Maritime Security Strategy: A Neo-Medieval Perspective on the Limits of Soft Security?” Croatian International Relations Review 22, no. 75 (August 1, 2016): 9–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/cirr-2016-0001.
17. HERBERT, Marcuse. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966.
18. HORRELL, Steven, Magnus Nordenman, and Walter B Slocombe. “Updating NATO’s Maritime Strategy.” Issue Brief. Atlantic Council Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, 2016. http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/resources/docs/Updating_NATO_Maritime_Strategy_0705_web.pdf.
19. KUHN, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
20. MARC von Boemcken, and Conrad Schetter. “Security: What Is It? What Does It Do?” The Reflection Group “Monopoly on the Use of Force 2.0?” Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2016.
21. MCDONALD, Matt. “Climate Change and Security: Towards Ecological Security?” International Theory 10, no. 02 (July 2018): 153–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1752971918000039.
22. MCNEİLL, J. R., and Peter Engelke. The Great Acceleration: An Environmental History of the Anthropocene since 1945. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014.
23. MERTENS, Donna M. “Transformative Paradigm: Mixed Methods and Social Justice.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, no. 3 (July 2007): 212–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811.
24. MERTENS, Donna M., Katrina L. Bledsoe, Martin Sullivan, and Amy Wilson. “Utilization of Mixed Methods for Transformative Purposes.” In SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 193–214. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2010. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n8.
25. MİCHAEL C. Williams. “Identity and the Politics of Security.” European Journal of International Relations 4, no. 2 (1998): 204–25.
26. MİTCHELL, Audra. “Only Human? A Worldly Approach to Security.” Security Dialogue 45, no. 1 (February 2014): 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010613515015.
27. MİTZEN, Jennifer. “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.” European Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3 (September 2006): 341–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346.
28. MURPHY, Martin N. Contemporary Piracy and Maritime Terrorism : The Threat to International Security. London: Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203759318.
29. NATO. “Alliance Maritime Strategy,” 2011. https://www.nato.int/cps/ua/natohq/ official_texts_75615.htm.
30. ODYSSEOS, Louiza. “Radical Phenomenology, Ontology, and International Political Theory.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27, no. 3 (July 2002): 373–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540202700305.
31. ROBERT O. Keohane. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1988): 379–96.
32. RUMELİLİ, Bahar. Conflict Resolution and Ontological Security: Peace Anxieties. 1st ed. Routledge, 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796314.
33. SANGARASİVAM, Yamuna. “Ecological Ontologies of Sovereignty and Insecurity: Settler Colonial Logics of National Security.” Critical Studies on Security 5, no. 2 (May 4, 2017): 203–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2017.1320880.
34. SLOGGETT, Dave. The Anarchic Sea: Maritime Security in the 21st Century. New Delhi: Pentagon Press, 2014.
35. SŌKEFELD, Martin. “From Colonialism to Postcolonial Colonialism: Changing Modes of Domination in the Northern Areas of Pakistan.” The Journal of Asian Studies 64, no. 04 (November 2005): 939–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021911805002287.
36. The UNCTAD Secretariat. “Review of Maritime Transport 2011.” Geneva: United Nations Publications, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004180048.i-962.602.
37. VORONKOV, Lev. “The Russian Claim for an Extended Continental Shelf in the Arctic.” Environmental Policy and Law 47, no. 2 (September 21, 2017): 88–94. https://doi.org/ 10.3233/EPL-170018.
38. W. B. Gallie. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56, no. 1 (1955): 167–98.
39. WALKER, R B J. “Security, Sovereignty, and the Challenge of World Politics.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 15, no. 1 (1990): 3–27.
40. WANG, Nils, Damien Degeorges, and Forsvarsakademiet. “Greenland and the New Arctic: Political and Security Implications of a Statebuilding Project.” Cph.: RDDC Publishing House, 2014.
41. ZHANG, Xin. “Chinese Capitalism and the Maritime Silk Road: A World-Systems Perspective.” Geopolitics 22, no. 2 (April 3, 2017): 310–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14650045.2017.1289371.