Do You Feel Welcome? Gendered Experiences in International Security Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 216-226
Author(s):  
Maria Rost Rublee ◽  
Emily B Jackson ◽  
Eric Parajon ◽  
Susan Peterson ◽  
Constance Duncombe
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Gender Representation ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Diversity Initiatives ◽  
Negative Experiences ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Old Boys Network

Abstract Unlike in the broader field of international relations, relatively little research on gender representation and gendered experiences exists within the subfield of security studies. This article begins to fill that gap by sharing the results of a 2019 survey of members of the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) of the International Studies Association (ISA). The survey results show striking gender differences in members’ experiences, with women more likely than men to describe ISSS as “insular,” “clubby,” and an “Old Boys’ Network”; more likely to report experiences of hostility and exclusion; and more likely to believe that diversity initiatives are needed. Our analysis reveals that women in the ISSS report (1) harassment, (2) negative experiences participating in various section activities, (3) more significant barriers to attending and being selected for the section's ISA program, and (4) a sense of feeling unwelcome at ISSS meetings, all at higher rates than male respondents.

There is no such thing as society: beyond individualism and statism in international security studies

1993 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Shaw
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Sociological Perspective ◽  
Actor Model ◽  
Conceptual Issue

This article offers a sociological perspective on a major conceptual issue in international relations, the question of ‘security’, and it raises major issues to do with the role of sociological concepts in international studies. For some years now, the work of sociological writers such as Skocpol, Giddens and Mann1 has attracted some interest in international studies. International theorists such as Linklater and Halliday have seen their work as offering a theoretical advance both on realism and on Marxist alternatives. At the same time, these developments have involved the paradox that, as one critic puts it, ‘current sociological theories of the state are increasingly approaching a more traditional view of the state—the state as actor model—precisely at a time when the theory of international relations is getting away from this idea and taking a more sociological form.

Gender and Global Security

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Hudson ◽  
R. Charli Carpenter ◽  
Mary Caprioli
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Military Training ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Gender Analysis ◽  
Human Race ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
Global Security ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
Sense Of Power

It is not only gender ambiguity that is securitized in the international arena, but femininity as well. Some scholars argue that conflict over what women are and what they should do is characterized as a risk to national/global security. Meanwhile, there are those who would characterize gender as irrelevant to, or is one of many variables, in thinking about “security.” Feminist international relations (IR) scholars, however, have argued that gender is across all areas of international security, and that gender analysis is transformative of security studies. A redefinition of security in feminist terms that reveals gender as a factor at play can uncover uncomfortable truths about the reality of this world; how the “myth of protection” is a lie used to legitimize war; and how discourse in international politics is constructed of dichotomies and that their deconstruction could lead to benefits for the human race. Feminist work asserts that it is inadequate to define, analyze, or account for security without reference to gender subordination, particularly, the dichotomy of the domination/subordination concept of power. Gender subordination can be found in military training routines that refer to underperforming men as “girls,” or in the use of rape and forced impregnation as weapons of war. It is the traditional sense of “power as dominance” that leads to situations such as the security dilemma.

Continuing the Conversation … Some Reflections

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 747-751
Author(s):  
Juanita Elias
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Feminist Perspective ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Security Governance ◽  
Women's Lives ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
The Relationship

The diverse collection of short reflections included in this Critical Perspectives section looks to continue a conversation—a conversation that played out in the pages of this journal (Elias 2015) regarding the relationship between two strands of feminist international relations scholarship: feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist international political economy (IPE). In this forum, the contributors return to some of the same ground, but in doing so, they bring in new concerns and agendas. New empirical sites of thinking through the nexus between security and political economy from a feminist perspective are explored: war, women's lives in postconflict societies, and international security governance institutions and practices.

scholarly journals EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT STUDIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CONTEXT IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA

2016 ◽  
pp. 48-62
Author(s):  
A. I. Nikitin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
World Order ◽  
Science Research ◽  
International Studies ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Conflict Studies ◽  
Political Sciences ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Economic Formation

Article analyses formation and development of the conflict studies in Russia as a sub-discipline within political sciences, on the edge between political theory and studies of international relations and international security. Article defines stages of formation of conflict studies in Russia, analyzes social request for studies of conflicts, considers influence of foreign and international institutes and research, both form the CIS and from other foreign countries, onto the conflict studies in Russia. Author postulates turning of the "New Political Thinking"paradigm elaborated by Gorbachev that allowed reconsidering Moscow's attitude towards various conflicts and rethinking of theoretical principles of conflict analysis, that are not anymore limited to class struggle and ideological contradictions. Introduction of more pluralistic concepts of "socio-political model" and "world order" instead of Marxist category of "socio-economic formation" led to remodeling of international relations along new lines, as well as study contradictions within one social system. Splash of inter-ethnic and separatist conflicts in the first half of the 1990s led to shaping of "practically oriented conflict studies" reflecting political interests of conflict sides in conflicts in Karabakh, Georgia/Abkhazia, Georgia/South Ossetia, Moldova/Transnistria. On the eve of 1990s-2000s formation of theoretical systemic conflict studies as a discipline took place, and this discipline was already quite strongly interfaced with international and foreign conflict studies theory. Article considers role of various institutes of the Russian Academy of Science, research centers including Russian Council on International Affairs, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy? Russian Pugwash Committee, Center for Political and International studies, Moscow Carnegie Center, Russian institute for Strategic Studies, Institute for the USA and Canada Studies, etc. As a separate direction of studies article tackles studies of post-soviet conflicts by foreign institutes and centers, like UNIDIR (Geneva), SIPRI (Stockholm), EU ISS (Paris), British Royal institute of International Affairs. Interaction of Russian and Swiss scientists on the basis of Geneva-based GCSP and DCAF attracts special attention. In conclusion typical issues in focus, as well as theme fields of the Russian conflict studies as a sub-discipline within political sciences are formulated.

scholarly journals Jak zkoumat gender v mezinárodní bezpečnosti? Úvod do feministických bezpečnostních studií

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-61
Author(s):  
Kateřina Krulišová ◽  
Dagmar Rychnovská
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Academic Environment ◽  
Political Transformations ◽  
Security Research ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Femininity And Masculinity ◽  
Victims Of Violence

Thinking on war, violence and security has always been associated with concepts of femininity and masculinity. Similarly, wars and political transformations also change the notions of the roles of women and men in society. This article shows how the links between gender identities and threat construction, understanding of aggression, or social sensitivity to different types of victims of violence can be studied academically. It introduces feminist security studies, embeds it in the research of international relations and security, and encourages its development in the Czech academic environment. The article introduces key concepts and methods of studying gender in (international) security, identifies key themes in feminist security research, and explains various approaches and types of questions that can be investigated in this area.

Is Strategic Studies Rationalist, Materialist, and A-Critical? Reconnecting Security and Strategy

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-510
Author(s):  
Pascal Vennesson
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
International Security ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
The Past ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Thomas Schelling ◽  
Strategic Studies

AbstractBetween the 1940s and the 1960s, strategy was at the heart of security studies and closely intertwined with International Relations (IR). Over the past three decades, however, the study of strategy has been relegated to a secondary position in the international security subfield and marginalized in IR theorizing. One important source of this disconnect is the challenge mounted by critical security advocates, who sought to reorient the study of security away from strategic studies. They reached into the philosophy of science and pulled out three familiar dichotomies, rationalism/constructivism, materialism/idealism, and problem-solving/critical theorizing, that they could utilize within security debates. Specifically, they argue that strategic studies leaves out too much of what is really important for security and world politics because it is rationalist, materialist, and retains an uncritical view of knowledge production. In this article, I turn the critical security conventional wisdom on its head and show that strategic studies, exemplified by the ideas of Carl von Clausewitz and Thomas Schelling, actually transcends these dichotomies and hence offers an indispensable source of insights for both security studies and IR.

The Global Politics of Medicine: Beyond global health, against securitisation theory

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 961-987 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALISON HOWELL
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Global Health ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Psychological Resilience ◽  
Politics Of Medicine

AbstractThis article makes the case for a new field in International Relations (IR): the Global Politics of Medicine. It argues that significant avenues of research can be opened up by focusing on medicine and the life sciences, in order to both challenge current IR theories, and develop new theoretical and empirical insights in IR. In particular, the article challenges the validity of securitisation theory, and specifically the argument that health has been securitised. Showing instead that medicine and warfare have been imbricated from the nineteenth century as strategies of population, it challenges securitisation theory's ahistoricism and its assumption that social security and international security (and the norm/exception) are analytically divisible. Bringing this into the present through the examples of triage, psychological resilience, and genetic intelligence in counterinsurgency, it traces how warfare and medicine now ambitiously seek to treat populations as sets of individual bodies. Arguing that we cannot retreat to some mythical state of politics ‘prior’ to securitisation, it draws out how the fields of war, health, and medicine are nonetheless highly contested. The article concludes by challenging the fields of Global Health, war, and security studies, but also suggests novel routes for pursuing the study of the Global Politics of Medicine.

scholarly journals The Evolution of Peacekeeping Operations : Interview with Professor Alexander I. Nikitin

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 738-746
Author(s):  
Alexander I. Nikitin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Security ◽  
International Studies ◽  
State University ◽  
State Institute ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Political Sciences ◽  
Moscow State University

Professor Dr. Alexander I. Nikitin is a leading Russian IR scholar, an expert on problems of international security, international conflicts, peacekeeping operations, activities of international organizations. Professor of the Political Sciences Department at MGIMO University, Director of the MGIMO Center for Euro-Atlantic Security of the Institute for International Studies, Director of the Center for Political and International Studies, Professor of the State Management Department of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Professor of the Public Policy Department of the Research University - Higher School of Economics, President Emeritus of the Russian Political Science Association (RPSA) and Chairman of the RPSA International Cooperation Council. Subject area: International Security, Peacekeeping, Conflict Resolution, International Relations, NATO Policy and Russia - NATO Relations, International Organizations (UN, OSCE, NATO, CSTO, SCO), Nuclear Policy and Non-Proliferation, Regulation of Private Military and Security Companies, Civil-Military Relations. Born in 1958, graduated from the Department of Philosophy of Moscow State University in 1979. PhD (International Relations) in 1983 and 2000. Research work for 10 years (1979-1989) in the USA and Canada Studies Institute (Senior Research Fellow, Head of Section). From 1989 to the present day Dr. Nikitin has been teaching in the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (from 1996 to the present day - Professor of the Department of Political Sciences). From 2004 to the present day - Director of the Center for Euro-Atlantic Security of the Institute for International Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. Center specializes in research in the spheres of international security and international relations. In his interview Professor Dr. Alexander I. Nikitin describes the current state of international peacekeeping, current trends and characteristics of conflicts and their impact on international relations. Professor Nikitin assesses Russias participation in peacekeeping operations within the UN and other formats of international cooperation.

scholarly journals Public Health in the Framework of the International Security. A Constructive Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
Sergiu Viorel Borsa
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Final Conclusion ◽  
Constructive Approach ◽  
Global Trends ◽  
Long Term Consequences

AbstractThe article highlights the fact that public health is an element of the security dimension that must be included on the priority agenda of specialists in the fields of international relations and security studies. There are arguments in favor of this theory. The costs of materializing threats to human security in general and public health in particular are particularly high, with serious long-term consequences. Global trends and prospects for the implications that can be generated are likely to change the world’s security landscape, and increasing global connectivity increases the degree of uncertainty about public health implications. Non-traditional issues arising from technological change can induce risks, whose management may go beyond institutional capacities. On the other hand, the new types of wars, increasingly interconnected with various forms of risk materialization, make this mission more difficult. The final conclusion is that these risks need to be assessed to ensure national, regional or even global security, and international cooperation for prevention and counseling.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document