A Methodological Discussion on Evaluating the Success of Any Securitizing Move

Öz

The study objects to lay out a lucid perspective on "how any securitizing move occurs successfully" an issue that was non-rigidly theorized in the Copenhagen version of securitization, in line with current debates. To this end, the vague criteria as follows, set by the classical cadre of the Copenhagen School are problematized: actors have to couch the issue as an existential threat requiring exceptional executive powers, and, if the audience accepts the securitizing move, the case is established as a security issue beyond the routine procedure of politics. Considering this conservative cycle, the first claim of this paper is that the politics of ‟audience acceptance” is not adequately determined in theory. The second is that the classical variants’ persistence in the transition to "exceptional security policy" in the operation of securitization, ignoring its insecure nature, reduces the theory to a given and fixed understanding of security such as "security=exceptionalism." Premised on these arguments, the paper proposes an overarching systematized thought that empowers the audience’s role; does not exclude "exceptional measures" but also inserts into "normalized exceptional" and even "routine responses" as actions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• securitizing move
• successful securitization
• audience
• extraordinary measures
• intersubjectivity

Kaynakça

1. Ağır, B. (2023). Copenhagen School of security studies. In T. Arı (Ed.), Critical theories in international relations identity and security dilemma (pp. 125–144). Lexington Books.
2. Akgül Açıkmeşe, S. (2011). Algı mı, söylem mi? Kopenhag Okulu ve Yeni Klasik Gerçekçilikte güvenlik tehditleri [Perception or discourse? Security threats in Copenhagen School and Neoclassical Realism]. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 8(30), 43–73. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/uidergisi/issue/39278/462550
3. Akgul Acikmese, S. (2013). EU conditionality and desecuritization nexus in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 13(3), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2013.812772
4. Aradau, C. (2004). Security and the democratic scene: Desecuritization and emancipation. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7(4), 388–413. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800030
5. Arı, T. (2021). Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri [International relations theory]. (10th ed.). Aktüel.
6. Arı, T. (2023). Introduction: Critical and post-modern challenge to international relations. In T. Arı (Ed.), Critical theories in international relations identity and security dilemma (pp. 1–8). Lexington Books.
7. Arias, S. B. (2022). Who securitizes? Climate change discourse in the United Nations. International Studies Quarterly, 66(2), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac020
8. Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Rumelili, B. (2019). Discourse analysis: Strengths and shortcomings. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 8(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.477300

9. Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066105052960
10. Balzacq, T. (2015). The ‘Essence’ of securitization: Theory, ideal type, and a sociological science of security. International Relations, 29(1), 103–113 https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606b
11. Balzacq, T., Léonard, S., & Ruzicka, J. (2016). ‘Securitization’ revisited: Theory and cases. International Relations, 30(4), 494–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117815596590
12. Behnke, A. (2000). The message or the messenger?: Reflections on the role of security experts and the securitization of political issues. Cooperation and Conflict, 35(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/00108360021962011
13. Bigo, D. (2000). When two become one: Internal and external securitisations in Europe. In D. Bigo (Ed.), International relations theory and the politics of European integration (pp. 171–204). Routledge.
14. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(1_suppl), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105
15. Bilgin, P. (2011). The politics of studying securitization? The Copenhagen School in Turkey. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418711
16. Bourbeau, P. (2014). Moving forward together: Logics of the securitisation process. Millennium, 43(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814541504
17. Brenan, M. (2018, February 19). North Korea surges to top of U.S. enemies list. GALLUP. Retrieved May 01, 2022, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/227813/north-korea-surges-top-enemies-list.aspx
18. Bright, J. (2012). Securitisation, terror, and control: Towards a theory of the breaking point. Review of International Studies, 38(4), 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000726
19. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
20. Collins, A. (2005). Securitization, Frankenstein’s Monster and Malaysian education. The Pacific Review, 18(4), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740500339034
21. Corry, O. (2012). Securitisation and ‘riskification’: Second-order security and the politics of climate change. Millennium, 40(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811419444
22. Côté, A. (2015). Social securitization theory [Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Calgary]. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/27817
23. Côté, A. (2016). Agents without agency: Assessing the role of the audience in securitization theory. Security Dialogue, 47(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010616672150
24. CNN (2017, Agust 03–06). CNN/SSRS Poll. Retrieved May 01, 2022, from http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/08/08/rel7b.-.north.korea.pdf
25. Floyd, R. (2011). Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitization theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418712
26. Floyd, R. (2016). Extraordinary or ordinary emergency measures: What, and who, defines the ‘success’ of securitization? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(2), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2015.1077651
27. Floyd, R. (2023, March 15–18). Securitization theories: Big picture theorising vs. 1:1 mapping. ISA Annual Convention, Montréal.
28. Grayson, K. (2003). Securitization and the Boomerang debate: A rejoinder to Liotta and Smith-Windsor. Security Dialogue, 34(3), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106030343009
29. Guzzini, S. (2011). Securitization as a causal mechanism. Security Dialogue, 42(4/5), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611419000
30. Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War. Routledge.
31. Hansen, L. (2011). Theorizing the image for Security Studies: Visual securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis. European Journal of International Relations, 17(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110388593
32. Jones, R. W. (1999). Security, strategy and critical theory. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
33. Kaunert, C., Leonard, S., & Wertman, O. (2022). Securitization of COVID-19 as a security norm: WHO norm entrepreneurship and norm cascading. Social Sciences, 11(7), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11070266
34. McDonald, M. (2008). Constructivism. In P. D. Willams (Ed.), Security studies: An introduction (pp. 59–73). Routledge.
35. Neal, A. W. (2012). Normalization and legislative exceptionalism: Counterterrorist lawmaking and the changing times of security emergencies. International Political Sociology, 6(3), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2012.00163.x
36. Patomäki, H. (2015). Absenting the absence of future dangers and structural transformations insecuritization theory. International Relations, 29(1), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606e
37. Philipsen, L. (2018). Performative securitization: From conditions of success to conditions of possibility. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23(1), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0130-8
38. Roe, P. (2006). Reconstruction identities or managing minorities? Desecuritizing minority rights: A response to Jutila. Security Dialogue, 37(3), 425–438.
39. Roe, P. (2008). Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK’s Decision to Invade Iraq. Security Dialogue, 39(6), 615–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010608098212
40. Roe, P. (2012). Is securitization a ‘negative’ concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics. Security Dialogue, 43(3), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010612443723
41. Salter, M. B. (2008). Securitization and desecuritization: A dramaturgical analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Journal of International Relations and Development, 11(4), 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2008.20
42. Salter, M. B. (2010). When securitization fails: The hard case of counter-terrorism programs. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 116–132). Routledge.
43. Schmitt, C. (2002). Siyasi ilahiyat, egemenlik kuramı üzerine dört bölüm [Political theology four chapters on the concept of sovereignty] (E. Zeybekoğlu, Trans.). Dost Yayınları. (Original work published 1986).
44. Secen, S. (2021). Explaining the politics of security: Syrian refugees in Turkey and Lebanon. Journal of Global Security Studies, 6(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa039
45. Stritzel, H. (2007). Towards a theory of securitization: Copenhagen and beyond. European Journal of International Relations, 13(3), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107080128
46. Trombetta, M. J. (2008). Environmental security and climate change: Analysing the discourse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(4), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570802452920
47. Vuori, J. A. (2008). Illocutionary logic and strands of securitization: Applying the theory of securitization to the study of non-democratic political orders. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), 65–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107087767
48. Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–86). Columbia University Press.
49. Wæver, O. (2003). Securitization: Taking stock of a research programme in security studies [Unpublished Copy], 1–36.
50. Wæver, O. (2011). Politics, security, theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418718
51. Wæver, O. (2015). The theory act: Responsibility and exactitude as seen from securitization. International Relations, 29(1), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606d
52. Wæver, O., & Buzan, B. (2020). Racism and responsibility – The critical limits of deepfake methodology in security studies: A reply to Howell and Richter-Montpetit. Security Dialogue, 51(4), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010620916153
53. Wertman, O., & Kaunert, C. (2022). The audience in securitization theory. Strategic Assessment, 25(3), 67–81.
54. Wilkinson, C. (2007). The Copenhagen School on tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is securitization theory useable outside Europe? Security Dialogue, 38(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010607075964
55. Williams, M. C. (2003). Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics. International Studies Quarterly, 47(4), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00277.x
56. Williams, M. C. (2011). The continuing evolution of securitization theory. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 212–222). Routledge,
57. Williams, M. C. (2015). Securitization as political theory: The politics of the extraordinary. International Relations, 29(1), 114–120, https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814526606c