Eleştirel Güvenlik Perspektifinden ABD-Meksika Sınırı

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 2, 201 - 216, 27.11.2023

Çağla Lüleci Sula

https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1268043

Öz

Alana girişlerinden bu yana, eleştirel güvenlik yaklaşımları yeni teorik tartışmalara yol açarak ve yeni araştırma alanları sunarak akademik yazını önemli ölçüde zenginleştirmiştir. Bu yaklaşımlar, devlet dışındaki referans nesneleri ve askeri tehditler dışındaki tehdit türlerini tanıtarak geleneksel güvenlik anlayışını derinleştirmiş ve genişletmişlerdir. Bu girişimler, güvenlik çalışmalarının devlet güvenliğine yoğun bir şekilde odaklı kalmasını engellemiş ve geleneksel olarak güvenlik çalışmalarının kapsamı dışında bırakılan yeni araştırma konularını alana kazandırmıştır. Farklı eleştirel güvenlik yaklaşımlarının göç-güvenlik bağlantısını nasıl anlamlandırdığını merak eden bu çalışma, Kopenhag Okulu (söylemsel yaklaşım) ve Paris Okulu’nun (sosyolojik yaklaşım) ABD-Meksika sınırını nasıl analiz ettiğini incelemektedir. Çalışma öncelikle bu iki düşünce ekolünün güvenliği nasıl tanımladığı, anladığı ve ele aldığını incelenmektedir. Ardından, ABDMeksika sınırını ele alan eleştirel güvenlik literatürüne odaklanmaktadır. Üçüncüsü, her iki yaklaşımın da aynı sınır üzerindeki açıklamalarını ve göç-güvenlik bağlantısının benzer ve farklı yönlerini nasıl ele aldıklarını tartışmaktadır. Çalışma, iki perspektif arasında köprü kuran bir yaklaşımın, göç-güvenlik bağlantısını anlamlandırma konusundaki analitik kapasitelerini artırmakta faydalı olacağı sonucuna varmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sınır Güvenliği, Kopenhag Okulu, Meksika, Paris Okulu, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri

Proje Numarası

NA

Critical Security Perspectives on the U.S.-Mexico Border

Öz

Critical approaches to security have enriched the literature significantly by provoking novel theoretical debates and introducing new areas of research since their entrance into the field. They have deepened and widened the traditional understanding of security by introducing referent objects other than the state and types of threats other than the military. These attempts have distracted security studies’ extensive focus on state security and pointed to new research topics that were traditionally excluded from the scope of security studies. Curious about how different critical security approaches make sense of the migration-security nexus, this study examines how the Copenhagen School (discursive approach) and the Paris School (sociological approach) analyze the U.S.-Mexico border. It first examines how these two schools of thought define, understand, and approach security. Second, it directs its focus on the critical security literature on the U.S.-Mexico borderland. Third, the article discusses both approaches’ accounts on the same border and how they handle dis/similar aspects of the migration-security nexus. The study concludes by defending the argument that bridging these two critical security approaches may increase their analytical power in making sense of the migration-security nexus.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Border Security, Copenhagen School, Mexico, Paris School, United States

Destekleyen Kurum

NA

Proje Numarası

NA

Teşekkür

NA

Kaynakça

• Ackleson, J. (2003). Securing Through Technology? Smart Borders after September 11th. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 16(1), 56-74. google scholar
• Ackleson, J. (2003a). Directions in border security research. The Social Science Journal, 40, 773-581. google scholar
• Ackleson, J. (2005). Constructing security on the U.S.-Mexico border. Political Geography, 24, 165-184. google scholar
• Amoore, L. (2006). Biometric borders: Governing mobilities in the war on terror. Political Geography, 25, 336-351. google scholar
• Astor, A. (2009). Unauthorized immigration, securitization, and the making of Operation Wetback. Latino Studies, 7(1), 5-29. google scholar
• Bigo, D. (2001). The Möbius Ribbon of Internal and External Securit(ies). In M. Albert, ed., Identities Borders Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory (pp. 91-116). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. google scholar
• Bigo, D. (2002). Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(1), 63-92. google scholar
• Bigo, D. (2013). International Political Sociology. In P. D. Williams, ed., Security Studies: an introduction (116129). NY: Routledge Taylor&Francis. google scholar
• Bigo, D. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of Practices, Practices of Power. International Political Sociology, 5(3), 225-258. google scholar
• Bigo, D. & Walker R.B.J. (2007). Political Sociology and the Problem of the International. Millennium- Journal of International Studies, 3, 725-739. google scholar
• Bilgin, P. & Ince B. (2014). Security and Citizenship in the Global South: In/securing citizens in early republican Turkey (1923-1946). International Relations, 29(4), 1-21. google scholar
• Buzan, B. & Hansen, L. (2009). Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge University Press: New York. google scholar
• Buzan, B., W^ver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: a new frameworkfor analysis. Boulder: Rienner. google scholar
• C.A.S.E. Collective. (2006). Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto. Security Dialogue, 37, 443-487. google scholar
• Cöte-Boucher, K., Infantino, F. & Salter, M. B. (2014). Border security as practice: An agenda for research. Security Dialogue, 45(3), 195-208. google scholar
• Doty, R. L. (2007). States of Exception on the Mexico-U.S. Border: Security, Decisions, and Civilian Border Patrols. International Political Sociology, 1(2), 113-137. google scholar
• Eckl, J. (2008). Responsible Scholarship After Leaving the Veranda: Normative Issues Faced by Field Researchers—and Armchair Scientists. International Political Sociology, 2(3), 185-203. google scholar
• Hutchison, H. (2020). Continuity and Change: Comparing the Securitization of Migration under the Obama and Trump Administrations. Perceptions, XXV(1), 81-98. google scholar
• Huysmans, J. (1998). Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe. European Journal ofInternational Relations, 4(4), 479-505. google scholar
• Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the Securitization of Migration. JCMS: J Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751-777. google scholar
• Huysmans, J. (2002). Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: The Normative Dilemma of Writing Security. Alternatives, 27, 41-62. google scholar
• Huysmans, J. (2008). The Jargon of Exception—On Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political Society. International Political Sociology, 2, 165-183. google scholar
• Katzenstein, P. J. & Sil, R. (2010). Analytic Eclecticism in the study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 411-431. google scholar
• Kessler, O. (2009). Toward a sociology of the international? International relations between anarchy and World society. International Political Sociology, 3(1), 87-108. google scholar
• Latham, R. (2014). The Governance of Visibility: Bodies, Information, and the Politics of Anonymity across the US-Mexico Borderlands. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 39(1), 17-36. google scholar
• Luleci-Sula, C. & Sula, I. E. (2021). Migration Management in Turkey: Discourse and Practice. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 18(72), 1-22. google scholar
• Mutlu, C. E. & Lüleci, Ç. (2016). The International Political Sociology of Security Studies. In Guillaume, X. & Bilgin, P. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook ofInternational Political Sociology (pp. 81-91). Routledge. google scholar
• Pouliot, V. (2012). Methodology: Putting practice theory into practice. In Adler-Nissen, R. Bourdieu in international relations: Rethinking key concepts in IR (pp. 45-58). London: Routledge. google scholar
• Sundberg, J. (2008). ‘Trash-talk’ and the production of quotidian geopolitical boundaries in the USA-Mexico borderlands. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(8), 871-890. google scholar
• Talavera, V., Nunez-Mchiri, G. G., & Heyman J. (2010). Deportation in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands: Anticipation, Experience, and Memory. In De Genova, N. & Peutz, N. (Eds.) The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement (pp. 166-194). Durham & London: Duke University Press. google scholar
• W^ver, O. (1995). Securitization and Desecuritization. In R. Lipschutz, (Ed.), On Security (pp. 46-86). New York: Colombia University Press. google scholar
• Walt, S. M. (1991). The Renaissance of Security Studies. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 211-239. google scholar
• Walters, W. (2010). Migration and Security. In Burgess, J. P. (Ed.), The Handbook of New Security Studies (pp. 217-228). London: Routledge. google scholar
• W^ver, O. (2012). Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: The Europeanness of new “schools” of security theory in an American field. In A. B. Tickner & Blaney (Eds.), Thinking International Relations Differently. Routledge. google scholar
• Wolfers, A. (1952). ‘National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol. Political Science Quarterly, 67(4), 481-502. google scholar