KENTSEL ALANLARDA GÜVENLİK AÇIKLARININ ANALİZ EDİLMESİ: “KENTSEL GÜVENLİK BÖLÜNMESİ” İÇİN KAVRAMSAL ÇERÇEVE

Öz

Bu çalışma, kentsel alanlarda kamu güvenliği hizmetlerine farklı erişim seviyeleri ve/veya etkili olmayan kamu güvenliği hizmeti sunumu nedeniyle ortaya çıkan güvenlik boşluklarının analiz edilmesi için betimleyici bir kavram olarak kentsel güvenlik bölünmesi kavramını önermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışma açısından, kentsel güvenlik politikalarının nihai amacı eşitsizlikleri ortadan kaldırmak için güvenlik açıklarını mümkün olduğunda daraltmak olmalıdır. Şehir merkezini ve onu çevreleyen banliyöler ve kasabalar gibi alanları içeren bir kentsel alanda farklı kentsel mekanlarda yaşayanlar, farklı sosyoekonomik gruplar, topluluklar ve benzerleri arasında güvenlik bölünmesi var olabilir. Kentsel güvenlik meseleleri, hızlı ve/veya plansız kentleşme, artan yoksulluk ve eşitsizlikler, göç, organize suç ve terörizm gibi toplumsal dayanışmanın ve insani güvenlik koşullarının bozulmasına yol açan nedenlerle son otuz yılda Birleşmiş Milletlerin sürdürülebilir kalkınma gündeminde öne çıkmıştır. BM’nin 2030 Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Gündemi genel olarak güvenlik ile kalkınmayı bibirleriyle ilişkilendirirken Gündemin Amaç No. 11’i şehirlerin ve insan yerleşimlerinin daha emniyetli hale getirilmesine özel olarak odanlanmaktadır. Avrupa Kentsel Güvenlik Forumu da, 2017 yılında kentsel güvenlik politikalarının birlikte üretimine ve güvenlik, demokrasi ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma arasındaki karşılıklı bağımlılığa vurgu yaparak kentsel güvenliğe yönelik taahhütünü yenilemiştir. Bu çalışma öncelikle, kentsel güvenlik bölünmesi kavramını tanımlamakta ve güvenlik açıklarının analiz edilmesi için bir ona ait bir kavramsal çerçeve geliştirmektedir. Daha sonra, çalışma analitik bir araç olarak kentsel güvenlik bölünmesi kavramını yöntembilimsel olarak tartışmakta ve araştırmacılar için sonuçlara yer vermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel Güvenlik Bölünmesi,Güvenlik Eşitsizlikleri,Güvenlik Sektörü Yönetişimi,Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma,Kavramsal Çerçeve

ANALYZING SECURITY GAPS AT URBAN AREAS: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR “URBAN SECURITY DIVIDE”

Abstract

This study aims to propose urban security divide as a descriptive concept to analyze security gaps at urban areas, arising from varying levels of access to public security services and/or ineffective provision of public security. In this context, the ultimate aim of urban security policies should be to narrow security gaps as much as possible so as to eliminate inequalities. In an urban area, which includes the city and its surrounding areas such as towns and suburbs, security divide may exist between those living at different urban spaces, between socioeconomic groups, and between communities etc. Issues of urban security has come to forefront in the last three decades within United Nations (UN) sustainable development agenda due to rapid and/or unplanned urbanization, increasing poverty and inequalities, migration, organized crime and terrorism, thus leading to deterioration of social cohesion and human security conditions. While the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development interrelates security and sustainable development in general, the Goal 11 of it dedicates a particular focus on making cities and human settlements safer. European Forum for Urban Security (EFUS) also renewed its commitment to urban security in 2017, emphasizing the co-production of urban security policies and interdependency between security, democracy and sustainable development. Drawing upon pertinent literature and documents, the study first describes urban security divide and develops a conceptual framework for it to analyze urban security gaps. The study proceeds with methodological discussion of urban security divide as an analytical tool and puts some conclusions for researchers.

Keywords

• Urban Security Divide,Security Inequalities,Security Sector Governance,Sustainable Development,Conceptual Framework

Kaynakça

1. Aguja, M. J. (2018). Security and Sustainable Development in General Santos City, Philippines. Geneva: DCAF.
2. Altpeter, C. (2016). Peacebuilding in Cities: Building Safe, Inclusive and Resilient Urban Spaces. Sweden: Folke Bernadotte Academy.
3. Armao, F. (2016). “Security and the City. In Search of a New Model of Urban Resilience on Violent Non-state Actors (VNSAS).” Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Volumen Especial (Enero-Junio): 16-30.
4. Barbak, A. (2018). Devlet ve Değişen Güvenlik Anlayışı. Quo Vadis: Kamu Yönetimi. Ankara: Nika Yayınevi.
5. Bhalla, A., Lapeyre, F. (1999). “Social Exclusion: Towards an Analytical and Operational Framework.” Development and Change, 28: 413-433.
6. Bugliarello, G. (2003). “Urban Security in Perspective.” Technology in Society, 25(4): 499-507.
7. Bugliarello, G. (2005). “Urban Security in the United States: An Overview.” Technology in Society, 27(3): 287-293.
8. Call, C. T., Stanley, W. (2001). “Protecting the People: Public Security Choices after Civil Wars.” Global Governance, 7(2): 151-172.

9. Cochran, C. L., Malone, E. F. (2014). Public Policy: Perspectives and Choices. USA: Lynne Riener Publishers.
10. Coward, M. (2009). “Network-Centric Violence, Critical Infrastructure and the Urbanization of Security.” Security Dialogue, 40(4-5): 399-418.
11. Edwards, A., Hughes, G. (2013). “Comparative European Criminology and the Question of Urban Security.” European Journal of Criminology, 10(3): 257-259.
12. European Commission (2010). Poverty and Social Exclusion. Brussels: Eurobarometer.
13. European Forum for Urban Security (EFUS) (2018). Manifesto: Security, Democracy and Cities-Co-producing Urban Security Policies. Paris: EFUS.
14. Layte, R., Maître, B., Whelan, C. T. (2010). Second European Quality of Life Survey: Living Conditions, Social Exclusion and Mental Well-Being. Ireland: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
15. Frevel, B. (2013). “Managing Urban Safety and Security in Germany: Institutional Responsibility and Individual Competence.” European Journal of Criminology, 10(3): 354-367.
16. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) (2017). DCAF Annual Report 2017: Dedicated to Making States and People More Secure Through Better Security Sector Governance. Geneva: DCAF.
17. Godoy, J. F., Rodriguez, C., Zuleta, H. (2018). Security in Sustainable Development in Bogota, Colombia. Geneva: DCAF.
18. Haubrich, D., Wehrhahn, R. (2015). “Urban Crime Prevention and the Logics of Public Security Policies in Brazil-A Relational Perspective on the Local Fields of Negotiation.” Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin, 146(1): 21-33.
19. Hurrell, A., Woods, N. (1999). Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics. UK: Oxford University Press.
20. Independent Commission on Multilateralism (2015). “Fragile States and Fragile Cities.” https://www.icm2016.org/IMG/pdf/discussion_paper-fragile_states_and_cities_final.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.02.2019).
21. Lamb, G. (2018). Security and Sustainable Development in Cape Town, South Africa. Geneva: DCAF.
22. Lemieux, F. (2016). “Urban Security: Challenges for Twenty-First Century Global Cities.” Police Practice and Research, 17(4): 9-11.
23. Menichelli, F. (2015). “The National Picture: The Reconfiguration of Sovereignty, the Normalization of Emergency and the Rise to Prominence of Urban Security in Italy.” European Journal of Criminology, 12(3): 263-276.
24. Muggah, R. (2012). Researching the Urban Dilemma: Urbanization, Poverty and Violence. Canada: International Development Research Center.
25. Muggah, R. (2014). “Deconstructing the Fragile City: Exploring Insecurity, Violence and Resilience.” Environment and Urbanization, 26(2): 345-358.
26. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2018). States of Fragility 2018: Highlights. Paris: OECD.
27. Oosterveld, W., Bergema, R., Siebenga, R., Schneider, B. (2018). How Cities and States Can Cooperate to Combat the Violence Nexus and Promote Human Security. Netherlands: Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.
28. Recasens, A., Cardoso, C., Castro, J. (2013). “Urban Security in Southern Europe.” European Journal of Criminology, 10(3): 368-382.
29. Savage, K., Muggah, R. (2012). “Urban Violence and Humanitarian Action: Engaging the Fragile City.” https://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/1524, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.02.2019).
30. Sutcliffe, S., Court, J. (2005). Evidence-Based Policymaking: What is it? How Does It Work? What Relevance for Developing Countries?, UK: Overseas Development Institute.
31. Tulumello, S. (2017). “Toward a Critical Understanding of Urban Security within the Institutional Practice of Urban Planning: The Case of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(4): 397-410.
32. Tulumello, S. (2018). “The Multiscalar Nature of Urban Security and Public Safety: Crime Prevention from Local Policy to Policing in Lisbon (Portugal) and Memphis (the United States).” Urban Affairs Review, 54(6): 1134-1169.
33. UN-HABITAT (2007). Enhancing Urban Safety and Security Global Report on Human Settlements 2007. Kenya:UN-HABITAT.
34. United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.
35. Virta, S., Branders, M. (2016). “Legitimate Security? Understanding the Contingencies of Security and Deliberation”. British Journal of Criminology, 56: 1146-1164.
36. Walliman, N. (2011). Research Methods: The Basics. UK: Routledge.
37. World Bank (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development. Washington, DC.: World Bank.
38. World Bank (2018). Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. Washington, DC.: World Bank.