In the context of international security, "securitization" refers to the process of framing certain issues or challenges as security threats, which often triggers extraordinary measures or policies. It involves convincing audiences, such as the public or policymakers, that specific issues require urgent and exceptional responses for the sake of security. This concept is associated with the field of security studies and is used to analyze how non-traditional security concerns, like climate change or migration, can be framed and addressed as security issues on a global scale.
Just as the word 'terrorist" is ambiguous, so is the objectives/aims of the 'war on terror'. I sorta agree with 'this guy' (referencing Phillipe Belanger) the theorist behind securitisation,i.e.: that both are arguably 'social or nationalist constructs'…re international relations critical theory.
Great contribution. I think especially today we see several securitization failures with the pandemic, which try to be uncovered with new securitization moves, and are eroding our democracies dangerously. Just a comment on a thesis I'm writing at the moment. I think the securitization moves can in fact be dangerous, and policymakers are taking the widening agenda far too lightly
'Securitisation theory' A company creates an ad hoc entity. It transfer the ownership of some of its assets, (for instance, the accounts receivable) to that ad hoc entity. The entity uses the assets to get financings on financial market. This is n short the concept of securitization.
That was pretty bad. A simpler alternative explanation is that people rationally refer to events as security threats and take more drastic actions simply *because* the events in question become more dangerous. This guy has provided zero arguments as to why it should be the other way around.
Philippe Belanger You know it was 'this guy' that came up with securitisation theory? And people dont rationally refer to events as security threats, because the referent object is different in all cases, you couldnt say that there is a rationalisation in securitisation of islamic terrorism by the UK because it is hardly a threat, in fact car accidents kill more people every year, or smoking - but these are not dealt with outside the politiscised zone because the referent object holds them to be a problem of internal society. The UK never went through the same securitisation of IRA terrorism during the troubles either in the same way they have reacted against islamic terrorism today, theres much more to it than that.
MotheredANiMaL It is doubtlessly the case that people are irrational in their judgments of risks; fearing planes more than cars, etc. But again, they will refer to these objects as threats because of their statistically false beliefs. We are justified in assuming that referring expressions are always a consequences of beliefs on grounds of parsimony. Assuming that some beliefs are formed as a consequence of referring acts radically complicates the picture, so it better yield big gains in explanatory power; this guy provides none. That is, unless you believe that beliefs are *always* formed as a consequence of acts of reference, but surely no academic is that devoid of common sense.
This guy is Ole Waver. One of the theorists of the Copehagen School in International Relations. I strongly recommend you to read his work, if you have not done so yet. He writes along with Barry Buzan, another scholar of the Copehagen School. Start with Regions and Power - the structure of international security. Cheers!
+Nick Holmes Nice explanation overall. However, your final example doesn't work, as you are simultaneously referent, securitizing actor and audience. You would have to convince others that your health warrants exceptional measures beyond the normal rules of the political game. In his seminal article "Securitization and De-securitization", Waever actually argues against analysis of the individual level on account of the seeming infinity of referent objects. Only referent objects that have a chance of being successfully securitized are relevant to analysis. There are a couple of exceptions, such as "human security", but this is more of a general principle on the international level to justify humanitarian intervention than an actual individual-level referent.
It is irrelevant that car accidents kill more people than terrorists. Because the point is that a single terrorist attack could cause a level of destruction beyond what 10,000 car accidents could possibly produce. Car accidents are non-scalable in the amount of deaths they can produce... they are limited to a few people per accident... a terrorist attack could kill an entire country with biological weapons like smallpox. Or nuclear weapons.
In the context of international security, "securitization" refers to the process of framing certain issues or challenges as security threats, which often triggers extraordinary measures or policies. It involves convincing audiences, such as the public or policymakers, that specific issues require urgent and exceptional responses for the sake of security. This concept is associated with the field of security studies and is used to analyze how non-traditional security concerns, like climate change or migration, can be framed and addressed as security issues on a global scale.
Damn you said it a lot better ,you should've been in the video lol
Much clearer and much more succinct.
I would love to set in the same room with this amazing person and just listen to this work of art.
Just as the word 'terrorist" is ambiguous, so is the objectives/aims of the 'war on terror'. I sorta agree with 'this guy' (referencing Phillipe Belanger) the theorist behind securitisation,i.e.: that both are arguably 'social or nationalist constructs'…re international relations critical theory.
Great contribution. I think especially today we see several securitization failures with the pandemic, which try to be uncovered with new securitization moves, and are eroding our democracies dangerously. Just a comment on a thesis I'm writing at the moment. I think the securitization moves can in fact be dangerous, and policymakers are taking the widening agenda far too lightly
This is so relevant to governments dealing with COVID
My Bachelor-Thesis Topic lol
@@Mo-iz5zk Good luck with that !
@@mathilde2115 Thanks a lot!
this is sooo interesting!
security construction, desecuritise, necessity, extraordinary measures
Some buddy noticed the 4 on his forehead ?
how the....
I did...
came to find a comment referring to that number 4, cause wtf?
'Securitisation theory'
A company creates an ad hoc entity. It transfer the ownership of some of its assets, (for instance, the accounts receivable) to that ad hoc entity.
The entity uses the assets to get financings on financial market.
This is n short the concept of securitization.
When I listen to Ole Wæver, I think how right Mearsheimer was.
Thanks you very much.
Even his bug theory is now valid
Reminds us of the Enabling Act of 1933 in the Reichstag
opps, or state constructs… just a theory… get it??
3:19 3:22
1:13
State of exception
it's a constructivist theory....Could be called sub theory
Its a delusion...
Do you think unemployment should no longer be seen as a normal social problem
Oh... come on... this is the same as when somebody say: there is no ugly people...
He said so much and could explain so little. Complicating the otherwise easy topics.
did he just try justify torture :-0
no, he explained how people come to tolerate things they otherwise wouldn't.
That was pretty bad. A simpler alternative explanation is that people rationally refer to events as security threats and take more drastic actions simply *because* the events in question become more dangerous. This guy has provided zero arguments as to why it should be the other way around.
Philippe Belanger You know it was 'this guy' that came up with securitisation theory? And people dont rationally refer to events as security threats, because the referent object is different in all cases, you couldnt say that there is a rationalisation in securitisation of islamic terrorism by the UK because it is hardly a threat, in fact car accidents kill more people every year, or smoking - but these are not dealt with outside the politiscised zone because the referent object holds them to be a problem of internal society. The UK never went through the same securitisation of IRA terrorism during the troubles either in the same way they have reacted against islamic terrorism today, theres much more to it than that.
MotheredANiMaL It is doubtlessly the case that people are irrational in their judgments of risks; fearing planes more than cars, etc. But again, they will refer to these objects as threats because of their statistically false beliefs. We are justified in assuming that referring expressions are always a consequences of beliefs on grounds of parsimony. Assuming that some beliefs are formed as a consequence of referring acts radically complicates the picture, so it better yield big gains in explanatory power; this guy provides none. That is, unless you believe that beliefs are *always* formed as a consequence of acts of reference, but surely no academic is that devoid of common sense.
This guy is Ole Waver. One of the theorists of the Copehagen School in International Relations. I strongly recommend you to read his work, if you have not done so yet. He writes along with Barry Buzan, another scholar of the Copehagen School. Start with Regions and Power - the structure of international security. Cheers!
+Nick Holmes Nice explanation overall. However, your final example doesn't work, as you are simultaneously referent, securitizing actor and audience. You would have to convince others that your health warrants exceptional measures beyond the normal rules of the political game. In his seminal article "Securitization and De-securitization", Waever actually argues against analysis of the individual level on account of the seeming infinity of referent objects. Only referent objects that have a chance of being successfully securitized are relevant to analysis. There are a couple of exceptions, such as "human security", but this is more of a general principle on the international level to justify humanitarian intervention than an actual individual-level referent.
It is irrelevant that car accidents kill more people than terrorists. Because the point is that a single terrorist attack could cause a level of destruction beyond what 10,000 car accidents could possibly produce. Car accidents are non-scalable in the amount of deaths they can produce... they are limited to a few people per accident... a terrorist attack could kill an entire country with biological weapons like smallpox. Or nuclear weapons.
8:37