Book Review: International Relations: Critical Security Studies: An Introduction

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-261
Author(s):  
Liz Sutherland
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8-16
Author(s):  
Navnita Chadha Behera ◽  
Kristina Hinds ◽  
Arlene B Tickner

2019 ◽  

This volume addresses the ‘question of power’ in current constructivist securitisation studies. How can power relations that affect security and insecurity be analysed from both a transdisciplinary and historical point of view? The volume brings together contributions from history, art history, political science, sociology, cultural anthropology and law in order to determine the role of conceptions of power in securitisation studies, which has tended to be dealt with implicitly thus far. Using conceptual theoretical essays and historical case studies that cover the period from the 16th to the 21st century, this book portrays the dominant paradigms of critical security studies, which mostly stem from the field of international relations and see the state as a major focal point in securitisation, in a new light.


2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Aradau ◽  
Jef Huysmans

Critical approaches in security studies have been increasingly turning to methods and standards internal to knowledge practice to validate their knowledge claims. This quest for scientific standards now also operates against the background of debates on ‘post-truth’, which raise pressing and perplexing questions for critical lines of thought. We propose a different approach by conceptualizing validity as practices of assembling credibility in which the transversal formation and circulation of credits and credentials combine with disputes over credence and credulity. This conceptualization of the validity of (critical) security knowledge shifts the focus from epistemic and methodological standards to transepistemic practices and relations. It allows us to mediate validity critically as a sociopolitical rather than strictly scientific accomplishment. Developing such an understanding of validity makes it possible for critical security studies and international relations to displace epistemic disputes about ‘post-truth’ with transversal practices of knowledge creation, circulation and accreditation.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barnard-Wills

This paper is a political theory analysis using the conflict, attacks, and ‘hactivism’ surrounding the WikiLeaks organisations following diplomatic cable releases as a case study to demonstrate the complexity of contemporary cyber conflict. This complexity is reflected in the motivations, identities, and values of a multiplicity of (often non-state) actors. Termed ‘the first visible cyber war’ this conflict (having already drawn in states, media organisations, banks and payments companies, and loose coalitions of individuals) is one where traditional metaphors of war occlude as much as they reveal. International relations and critical security studies have developed a range of approaches to international conflict that focus on identities, values, and normative frameworks. Securitization, hegemony, and democratic demands offer a productive way of understanding cyber conflict. Distributed denial of service attacks are interpreted as an attempt to establish a dominant discursive position and to construct a coalition around political issues


Politics ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 026339572110606
Author(s):  
Chris Rossdale

Recent interventions in critical security studies have argued that the field has struggled to account for the racialised/racist foundations of security politics. This article engages with the US Black Panther Party (BPP), arguing that the Party did important work to show how security politics is dependent on racial violence. The idea that we can theorise global politics through struggle (`struggle as method’) is becoming popular within disciplinary International Relations (IR), but has longer lineages in Black radical thought. The BPP were important advocates of struggle as method, with tactics and strategies intentionally designed with a pedagogical purpose; through Panther actions (including community self-defence and survival programmes), and the state’s response to these, the mechanisms of capitalist white supremacy were laid bare. The article therefore acknowledges BPP action as a series of theoretical interventions, which demonstrated how the terms of US/white security are rooted in and dependent on anti-Blackness. It also shows how Panther tactics prefigured alternative, radical, anti-statist approaches to security, these conceptualised as `survival pending revolution’. The article closes by arguing that scholarship on critical security studies - especially as related to the racialised politics of security - should do more to work with and acknowledge its indebtedness to struggle as method.


Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Muller

Governmentality and biopolitics has emerged as a chief source of scholarship and debate within contemporary international relations (IR), particularly among those involved in the sub-disciplines, Critical Security Studies and International Political Sociology. Governmentality, first and foremost, is a term coined by philosopher Michel Foucault, and refers to the way in which the state exercises control over, or governs, the body of its populace. Meanwhile, biopolitics, which was coined by Rudolf Kjellén, is an intersectional field between biology and politics. In contemporary US political science studies, usage of the term biopolitics is mostly divided between a poststructuralist group using the meaning assigned by Michel Foucault (denoting social and political power over life), and another group who uses it to denote studies relating biology and political science. The foci of literatures on governmentality and biopolitics are particularly agreeable to many scholars critical of traditional IR scholarship and its distinct articulation of “world politics.” The shifty nature of both concepts, as defined by Michel Foucault and the subsequent use by various scholars, presents challenges to setting any specific account of these terms; yet the blurriness of these concepts is what makes them productive, contrary to the zero-sum, rationalist accounts of power and behavior so central to much of conventional IR.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Bellamy

This article calls for a widening of the debate about humanitarian intervention to incorporate insights from constructivism, ‘Welsh School’; Critical Security Studies, and critical approaches to Third World International Relations. After identifying a series of problems with the contemporary debate, which is dominated by the English School, it calls for a broadening of the concept of intervention and suggests a need to rethink the meaning of humanitarianism and terms such as the ‘supreme humanitarian emergency’.


Author(s):  
John Carman ◽  
Patricia Carman

What is—or makes a place—a ‘historic battlefield’? From one perspective the answer is a simple one—it is a place where large numbers of people came together in an organized manner to fight one another at some point in the past. But from another perspective it is far more difficult to identify. Quite why any such location is a place of battle—rather than any other kind of event—and why it is especially historic is more difficult to identify. This book sets out an answer to the question of what a historic battlefield is in the modern imagination, drawing upon examples from prehistory to the twentieth century. Considering battlefields through a series of different lenses, treating battles as events in the past and battlefields as places in the present, the book exposes the complexity of the concept of historic battlefield and how it forms part of a Western understanding of the world. Taking its lead from new developments in battlefield study—especially archaeological approaches—the book establishes a link to and a means by which these new approaches can contribute to more radical thinking about war and conflict, especially to Critical Military and Critical Security Studies. The book goes beyond the study of battles as separate and unique events to consider what they mean to us and why we need them to have particular characteristics. It will be of interest to archaeologists, historians, and students of modern war in all its forms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document