security k - aff

8/20/2019 Security K - Aff

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/security-k-aff 1/37

275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

Security K aff answers – DDI 12

Security K aff answers – DDI 12.........................................................................................................................................................1Security good.......................................................................................................................................................................................2Security good.......................................................................................................................................................................................3Security good.......................................................................................................................................................................................4

Security good – Global warming.........................................................................................................................................................5Scmitt – di!isions good....................................................................................................................................................................."#rediction$strategy %lanning................................................................................................................................................................&Immanent criti'ue................................................................................................................................................................................(#roblem sol!ing good........................................................................................................................................................................1)State good..........................................................................................................................................................................................11State good..........................................................................................................................................................................................12#ragmatic leadersi%..........................................................................................................................................................................13#erm.................................................................................................................................................................................................. .14#erm Sol!es – Strategic *e!ersibility...............................................................................................................................................15#erm sol!es........................................................................................................................................................................................1"#erm – %ositi!ism can+t be re,ected...................................................................................................................................................1&-lt fails – no cange..........................................................................................................................................................................1

-lt fails – securiti/es security............................................................................................................................................................1(-lt fails – securiti/es security............................................................................................................................................................2)-lt fails – securiti/es security............................................................................................................................................................21-lt fails – no framewor0 for !alue....................................................................................................................................................22-lt fails – cede te %olitical...............................................................................................................................................................23-2 *e%s K........................................................................................................................................................................................24-2 K %rior.........................................................................................................................................................................................25ransition fails...................................................................................................................................................................................2"*ealism ine!itable – Gu//ini.............................................................................................................................................................2&*ealism good – transition war......................................................................................................................................................2*ealism good – %olitical !acuum......................................................................................................................................................2(*ealism good – criti'ue %etrifies o%%ression.....................................................................................................................................3)reats are real..................................................................................................................................................................................31reats are real..................................................................................................................................................................................33*ealism ine!itable – actors assume it................................................................................................................................................34Intellectual i,ac0ing.........................................................................................................................................................................35-2 *ealism constructs treats..........................................................................................................................................................3"

o bio%ower im%act..........................................................................................................................................................................3&

In my o%inion te best cards are teseGunning %. 1oot %. 26illiams %. &*oe %. 1(Knudsen %. 23

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

1



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

Security good

Security means the potentia for emancipation! not mere sur"i"a. Safety is the ony foundation for

human fourishing

Ken #ooth #rof. of I* 9 6ales $5 :Critical Security Studies and World Politics %. 22;e best starting %oint for conce%tuali/ing security lies in te real conditions of insecurity suffered by %eo%le andcollecti!ities. 7oo0 around. 6at is immediately stri0ing is tat some degree of insecurity as a life determining conditionis uni!ersal. o te e<tent an indi!idual or grou% is insecure to tat e<tent teir life coices and cances are ta%en away=tis is because of te resources and energy tey need to in!est in see0ing safety from domineering treats > weter teseare te lac0 of food for one+s cildren or organi/ing to resist a foreign aggressor. e corollary of te relationsi% betweeninsecurity and a determined life is tat a degree of security creates ife possi&iities. Security migt terefore beconcei!ed as synonymous wit opening up space in peope's i"es. is allows for indi!idual and collecti!e human

&ecoming > te ca%acity to a!e some coice about li!ing differently > consistent wit te same but different searc byoters. wo interrelated conclusions follow from tis. ?irst security can be understood as an instrumental !alue= it frees its

%ossessors to a greater or lesser e<tent from life>determining constraints and so allows different life %ossibilities to bee<%lored. Second security is synonymous sim%ly wit sur!i!al. @ne can sur!i!e witout being secure Ate e<%erience ofrefugees in long>term cam%s in war>torn %arts of te world for e<am%leB. Security is terefore more than mere animalsur!i!al Abasic animal e<istenceB. It is sur!i!al>%lus te %lus being te possi&iity to e(pore human &ecoming -s aninstrumental !alue security is sougt because it frees %eo%leAsB to some degree to do oter tan deal wit treats to teir

uman being. e acie!ement of a le!el of security > and security is always relati!e > gi!es to indi!iduals and grou%ssome time energy and sco%e to cose to &e or &ecome other than merey sur"i"a as human &ioogica organisms.Security is an im%ortant dimension of te %rocess by wic te uman s%ecies can rein!ent itself beyond te merely

biological.

Security eads to the emancipation – other concpetuai)ations are coopted &y the state

-ntony #ur%e -ssociate #rofessor of #olitics and International *elations in te Cni!ersity of ew Sout 6ales une 2)07E6at Security 8a0es #ossible Some tougts on critical security studiesF De%artment of International *elations Cni!ersity of ewSout 6ales %g. "> $ K

He lin0s it wit cosmo%olitan ideals wit an argument tat te conce%t of emanci%ation sa%es strategies and tactics ofresistance offers a teory of %rogress for society and gi!es a %olitics of o%e for a common umanity( eir argumentsa!e strong affinities wit . -nn ic0ners !ision of a security based u%on te elimination of un,ust social relationsincluding une'ual gender relations and for a reformulation of international relations in terms of te multi%le insecuritiesre%resented by ecological destruction %o!erty and AgenderedB structural !iolence rater tan te abstract treats to teintegrity of states teir interests and core !alues.2) ogeter tey a!e stated ins%irational normati!e goals tat rigtlyguide many attem%ts to reformulate security in more %ositi!e ways. eir arguments also a!e strong affinities wit teidea of uman security de!elo%ed by te Cnited ations De!elo%ment #rogramme ACD#B in 1((4.21 e referent ob,ectof security as sifted from te state to te uman being and in oots !iew re'uires tat te state sim%ly be a means notan end of security. It must facilitate te acie!ement of security not be its ob,ect. ut tey are also arguing for sometingmuc more radical and im%ortant tan is a!ailable in most understandings of uman security te insistence onunderstanding insecurity and acie!ing security as com%le< olistic %rocesses tat re'uire not merely te amelioration of

%articular needs or te defence of umans against discrete treats contained by time and %lace but ongoing structuraltransformations based on ideas of emanci%ation social ,ustice and uman %rogress. Drawing on Gandi oot states tatsecurity must be a means for emanci%ation and 6yn ones argues tat e!en if a more emanci%ated order is brougt intoe<istence te %rocess of emanci%ation remains incom%lete. ere is always room for im%ro!ement ...J isconce%tualisation is not merely intrinsically im%ortant= it offers a line of resistance to te all too common coo%tion of

uman security to statist agendasJsuc as tose of anada wic a!e sougt to use it to burnis its claims to nationalidentity and good international citi/ensi%Jor its reduction to 'uestions of intra>state conflict and liberal go!ernanceinter!entions. Hence if %eo%le are made insecure by a com%le< melange of treats %ractices and %rocessesJ%oorgo!ernance %olitical o%%ression ci!il conflict te global economy corru%tion uman rigts abuse gender !iolence anddiscrimination or en!ironmental destructionJsecuring tem re'uires wor0 at all tese le!els including te most systemicand a%%arently immo!able. In turn security is merely a way>station to someting grander and more ins%iring.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

2



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

Security good

*he forum of de&ate so"es the in% – the aff isn't presented as a&soute truth &ut as an o&+ect to &e

contested. *his aows security to unfod "ia de&ate rather than discursi"e marginai)ation

,oe! 12 A#aul *oe -ssociate #rofessor in te De%artment of International *elations and Luro%ean Studies at entral Luro%eanCni!ersity uda%est EIs securiti/ation a Mnegati!e+ conce%tN *e!isiting te normati!e debate o!er normal !ersus e<traordinary

%oliticsF Security Dialogue !ol. 43 no. 3 une 2)12B?or te o%enagen Scool securiti/ation re%resents a %anic %olitics we must do someting now as our !ery sur!i!al is at sta0e. In suc ascenario it is ardly sur%rising tat -radau and Huysmans bot see te %ossibilities for debate and deliberation as being minimal normal %roceduresmust be circum!ented oterwise it migt all be too late. e s%eed of decisionma0ing and te accom%anying silence on te %art of tose outside terele!ant elite are made all te more salient by te so>called internalist AStrit/el 2))&B or %iloso%ical Aal/ac' 2)11B !iew of securiti/ationwereby te security s%eec act %ossesses its own %erformati!e %ower. e internalist reading is caracteristic of 6O!er+s A1((5B earlier wor0 onsecuriti/ation and accords wit te notion of %erformati!ity. #erformati!ity corres%onds to on 7. -ustin+s illocutionary act. Here utteringsecurity is more tan ,ust describing someting it is %erforming an action tat creates new realities Aal/ac' 2))5 1&& 2)11 2)=Strit/el 2))& 3"1B. e security s%eec act tus as te %ower to enable emergency measures and to AreBorder socio%olitical relations Afriend$enemyus$temB. In oter words security is a self>referential %ractice. e internalist reading of securiti/ation closely resembles te Scmittian conce%tionof te %olitical inasmuc as bot are decisionist te securiti/ing actor li0e Scmitt+s so!ereign defines wat is e<ce%tional. e silence tat arguablymar0s te internalist reading terefore reflects te lac0 of o!ersigt to wic te securiti/ing actor is sub,ect wile wit regard to s%eed tere is adistinct sense of automaticity in te moment wen a %olitical issue is ra%idly transformed into a matter of security by !irtue of its !ery utterance assuc. is is %roblemati/ed owe!er by te so>called e<ternalist AStrit/el 2))&B or sociological Aal/ac' 2)11B !iew wicem%asi/es instead te intersub,ecti!ity of te securiti/ation %rocess. 6it te e<ternalist reading te autority to s%ea0 and te %owerof te s%eec act itself are sub,ect to te conte<t in wic security is uttered. 8ost im%ortantly te framing of someting as a securityissue is not te sole %reser!e of te securiti/ing actor but must also be acce%ted by a rele!ant audience. -s u/an et al. A1(( 25Bma0e clear %resenting someting as an e<istential treat is merely a Msecuriti/ing mo!e+ as Mte issue is :successfully; securiti/ed onlyif and wen te audience acce%ts it as suc+. -ccordingly wit its em%asis on te intersub,ecti!e establisment of treat tee<ternalist rendering of securiti/ation ma0es %roblematic 6O!er+s earlier assertion of security as a self>referential %ractice. -nd tisconce%tual tension is reflected in te s%ecific debate o!er te nature of te s%eec act itself. ?or bot ierry al/ac' and Holger Strit/el 6O!er$teo%enagen Scool tus %resent securiti/ation as bot an illocutionary act and a %erlocutionary act – tat is tey discuss wat is done in sayingsecurity as well as wat is done by saying security. #erlocutionary acts are e<ternal to te %erformati!e as%ect of te s%eec act and terebycorres%ond not to te utterance itself but to its effects did te securiti/ing actor manage to con!ince te rele!ant audience. al/ac' A2))5 1&&–Bsums u% te situation tus eiter we argue tat securiti/ation is a self>referential %ractice in wic case we forsa0e %erlocution wit te relatedac'uiescence of te audience P or we old fast to te creed tat using te conce%tion of security also %roduces a %erlocutionary effect in wic casewe abandon self>referentiality. He goes on I sus%ect instead tat te S :o%enagen Scool; leans towards te first o%tionP. :-;ltoug te Sa%%eals to an audience its framewor0 ignores te audience wic suggests tat te S o%ts for an illocutionary !iew of security yielding a Mmagical

efficiency+ rater tan a fully>fledged model encom%assing %erlocution as well Aal/ac' 2))5 1&&–B.( It is indeed te case tat te o%enagenScool as underconce%tuali/ed te role of te audience.1) is is someting of wic 6O!er A2))3B imself is well aware. ut it isdebatable weter te o%enagen Scool fa!ours an internalist reading of te securiti/ation conce%t. -ltoug 6O!er is 0een to stress teim%ortance of te Mmoment+ of te s%eec act and tus retain its illocutionary force e ne!erteless also leans towards te im%ortance of terelationsi% between securiti/ing actor and audience. 6O!er warns of !iewing securiti/ation as a Munilateral %erformance+ – tat underta0en only byte so!ereign – and tus its e'ui!alence to a MScmittian anti>democratic decisionism+. *ater 6e :members of te o%enagen Scool; %reser!e tee!ent>ness of te s%eec act and te %erformati!e moment but locate it in>between te actorsP. is migt loo0 li0e %erlocution because it includessometing after te s%ea0er+s first action but if te s%eec act is !iewed as a larger wole including audience it is more a%%ro%riate to seesecuriti/ation as wat is done in te Acollecti!eB act rater tan dissol!ing te mo!e into one com%onent of a larger com%le< social e<%lanation of

%rocesses A6O!er 2))& 4B. e im%ortant %oint ere is ow te security s%eec act mo!es away from a Scmittian to an -rendtian conce%tion of %olitics Mbecause te teory %laces %ower in>between umans P and insists on securityness being a 'uality not of treats but of teir andling tatis te teory %laces %ower not wit EtingsF e<ternal to a community but internal to it+ A6O!er 2)11 4"B. ?or 6O!er securiti/ation tus ta0es

%lace in a conte<t were tere is s%ace for o%en %olitics actors and audiences togeter agree as to wat constitutes security and watdoes not. is is not to say tat agreement is necessarily reaced on an e'ual basis as actors often %ossess and indeed em%loy te

resources to ca,ole and bully audiences into ac'uiescing to teir de%iction of e!ents. ut it is to say tat some 0ind of agreement isne!erteless re'uired. Indeed te %otential for securiti/ation to a!oid its Scmittian connotations in tis way is also recogni/ed by6illiams. ?or 6illiams te im%ortance of te audience relates to a Mdiscursi!e etics+ tat goes against te decisionist account ofsecuriti/ation. e security s%eec act entais the possi&iity of diaogue and there&y aso the potentia for the transformation of

security A6illiams 2))3 522–3B. -nd altoug 6illiams A2))3 524B seems somewat sce%tical as to te e<tent to wicsecuriti/ations are sub,ect to suc Mdiscursi!e legitimation+ – also noting ow security issues often Mo%erate in te realm of secrecy ofEnational securityF of decision+ – e noneteless ma0es clear te %otential for securiti/ations to be M%ulled bac0+ into te %ublic realmM%articularly wen te social consensus underlying te ca%acity for decision is callenged eiter by 'uestioning te %olicies or bydis%uting te treat or bot+.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

-



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

Security good

Security %ey to a"oid fascism/e shoud manage "ioence instead of trying to create a metapoitics of

difference and peace.

@le /, Senior *esearc ?ellow 9 o%enagen #eace *esearc Inst. $2K in International Relations Theory and the

Politics of European Integration eds. Kelstru% and 6illiams %. 24>25e oter main %ossibility is to stress res%onsibility. #articularly in a fieldli0e security one as to ma0e coices and dealwit te callenges and ris0stat one confronts > and not sy away into long>range or %rinci%led trans>formations. emeta>%olitical line ris0s Ades%ite te teoretical commitment to te concrete oterB im%lying tat %olitics can be containedwitinlarge systemic 'uestions. In line wit te classical re!olutionary traditionafter te cange Anow no longer tere!olution but te meta>%ysical transformationB tere will e no more %roblems wereas in our situation Auntilte cangeBwe sould not deal wit te small 'uestions of %olitics onlywit te large one cf. *orty 1(("B. Howe!er te eticaldemand in %ost>structuralism Ae.g. Derridas ,usticeB is of a 0ind tat can ne!er be instantiated in any concrete %oliticalorder > it is an e<%erience of te undecidabletat e<ceeds any concrete solution and re>inserts %olitics. erefore %oliticscanne!er be reduced to meta>'uestions= tere is no way to erase te small%articular banal conflicts and contro!ersies.In contrast to te 'uasi>institutionalist formula of radical democracywic one finds in te o%ening oriented !ersion ofdeconstruction wecould wit Derrida stress te singularity of te e!ent. o ta0e a %ositionta0e %art and %roduce e!entsADerrida 1((4 (B means to get in!ol!edin s%ecific struggles. #olitics ta0es %lace in te singular e!ent of engagementADerrida 1((" *3B. In contrast to te 'uasi>institutionalist formula of radical democracywic one finds in te o%ening

oriented !ersion of deconstruction wecould wit Derrida stress te singularity of te e!ent. o ta0e a %ositionta0e %art and%roduce e!ents ADerrida Q((4 (B means to get in!ol!edin s%ecific struggles. #olitics ta0es %lace in te singular e!ent ofengagement ADerrida 1((" 3BDerridas %olitics is focused on te calls tat demand res%onse$res%onsibility contained in words li0e ,ustice Luro%e andemanci%ation. Sould wetreat security in tis mannerN o security is not tat 0ind of call. Securityis not a way to o%en Aor 0ee% o%enB an etical ori/on. Security is a mucmore situational conce%t oriented to te andling of s%ecifics. It belongstote s%ere of ow to andle callenges > and a!oid te worst ADerrida1((1B. Here enters again te %ossible %essimismwic for te securityanalyst migt be occu%ational or structural. e infinitude of res%onsibilityADerrida 1((" "B or tetragic nature of %olitics A8orgentau 1(4"a%ter &B means tat one can ne!er feel reassured tat by some gooddeed 1a!e assumed my res%onsibilities ADerrida 1((" "B. If I conduct myself %articularly well wit regard to someone I0nowtat it is to te detriment of an oter= of one nation to te detriment ofanoter nation of one family to te detriment ofanoter family of my friends to te detriment of oter friends or non>friends etc. is iste infinitude tat inscribes itselfwitin res%onsibility= oterwise terewould e no etical %roblems or decisions. Aibid.B and %arallel argumentation in

8orgentau 1(4"=a%ters " and &B ecause of tis tere will remain conflicts and ris0s > and te 'uestion ofow to andletem. Sould de!elo%ments be securiti/ed Aand if so inwat termsBN @ften our re%ly will e to aim for de>securiti/ationand ten%olitics meet meta>%olitics but occasionally te underlying %essimismregarding te %ros%ects for orderliness andcom%atibility among umanas%irations will %oint to scenarios sufficiently worrisome tat res%onsibilitywill entailsecuriti/ation in order to bloc0 te worst. -s a security$securiti/ation analyst tis means acce%ting te tas0 oftrying tomanage and a!oid s%irals and accelerating security concerns totry to assist in sa%ing te continent in a way tat createste least insecurityand !iolence > e!en if tis occasionally means in!o0ing$%roducingstructures or e!en using te dubiousinstrument of securiti/ation. In tecase of te current Luro%ean configuration te abo!e analysis suggests teuse ofsecuriti/ation at te le!el of Luro%ean scenarios wit te aim of pre3empting and a"oiding numerous instances of oca

securiti)ation tat couldlead to security dilemmas and escalations !iolence and mutual !ilification.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

4



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

Security good – o&a warming

n"ironmenta securiti)ation is ony &ad when it is &uit off of nationa security – go&a warming is a

human security pro&em! which a"oids the dangerous eements


%oliticsF Security Dialogue !ol. 43 no. 3 une 2)12B?ocusing on te en!ironmental sector of security ?loyd reasons tat tere are certain referents owe!er tat can indeed be

%ri!ileged o!er oters. In re!ising te securiti/ation conce%t to enable in'uiry into actors+ intentions ?loyd %ro%oses watse calls a Mreferent ob,ect benefiting securiti/ation+ and an Magent benefiting securiti/ation+. e distinction between tesetwo securiti/ations %ut sim%ly is tat wile one corres%onds to te benefit of te wider declared referent te oter benefitste narrower concerns of te securiti/ing actor. esidesDistinguising between different ty%es of securiti/ation according to te beneficiary is im%ortant beyond allowing insigtsinto intentions of securiti/ing actors= it suggests tat not all securiti/ations are morally e'ual. It olds o%en te %ossibilitytat de%ending on wo$wat benefits from any gi!en securiti/ation it can be eiter morally rigt or morally wrong A?loyd2)1) 5"B.-dditionally toug moral rigtness is also de%endent on te nature of te wider referent for ?loyd A2)11 431B referentob,ects must be Mconduci!e to uman well>being+.1(In tis %articular regard ?loyd A2))&B distinguises between state>centric and uman>centric a%%roaces to en!ironmental

security and subse'uently A?loyd 2)1)B between en!ironmental security as Mnational security+ Astate>centricB as Mumansecurity+ Auman>centricB and as Mecological security+. ?loyd re,ects te national>security a%%roac on te ground tat itreflects too narrow a conce%tion of uman well>being Aour citi/ens o!er yoursB and te ecological security a%%roac forfailing to %ri!ilege uman life o!er and abo!e oter animal and life s%ecies.2) M@nly en!ironmental security as umansecurity+ se concludes Mdirectly benefits uman beings+ and im%ortantly Msee0s to address te root causes ofen!ironmental cange troug AglobalB coo%erati!e measures wit te ultimate aim of establising a ealty andfunctioning en!ironment for us all+ A?loyd 2)1) 14B.21-ltoug as some critics a!e %ointed out22 ?loyd+s wor0 maintains tat some securiti/ations may reflect a Scmittiannotion of te %olitical for ?loyd erself loo0ing at actors+ intentions ma0es it %ossible to distinguis between on te oneand tose securiti/ations tat maintain e<isting %ower structures and relations Aagent>benefitingB and on te oter toseAreferent ob,ect>benefitingB tat not only enable te securing of wider interests but also en!isage a more transformatory

%rocess. roug a concentration on en!ironmental security as uman security and a normati!e commitment to aconce%tion of uman well>being23 ?loyd+s wor0 tus re!eals te %ossibilities for a different A%ositi!eB mode of %olitics

based on a re,ection of /ero>sum tin0ing. -s ?loyd A2)1) 4B erself is 0een to stress te outcome of securiti/ation is notalways Mconflict and te security dilemma+. In efforts to transcend negati!e friend$enemy identifications certain ecologicalissues – suc as global warming – may tus be conduci!e for te construction of non>di!isi!e referents AumanityB. -nd intis way ?loyd ac0nowledges tat te en!ironmental sector may be relati!ely un%roblematic in relation to te !alue ofuman well>being. ut Mwat else in oter sectors+ se as0s Mcould be said to a!e te same statusN+ A?loyd 2)1) 1(3B.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

5



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

Schmitt – di"isions good

*heir attempt to poice the &oundaries of $proper' criti6ue destroys the possi&iity of sef3refection. *he

a&soute denia of "aidity to forms of poitica e(pression &ased on asserted starting points creates a

fundamentaist ethic that "ioenty ceanses those with dirty hands.

6illiam ,asch Germanic Studies – Indiana $5 ASouth Atlantic Quarterly 1)42 S%ringBut ow are we to res%ondN ?or tose wo say tere is no war and wo yet find temsel!es witnessing daily bloodsed-dornoian asceticism Arefraining from %artici%ating in te niilism of te %oliticalB or en,aminian wea0 'uasi or otermessianism Awaiting for te ne<t incarnation of te istorical sub,ect :te multitudesN; or te ne<t %roletarian general stri0e:te e!entN;B would seem to be te answer. o tis owe!er tose wo say tere is a war can res%ond only wit

bewilderment. 6aiting for a MMcom%letely new %olitics++ 1) and com%letely new %olitical agents waiting for te e!ent andte rigt moment to name it or waiting for uni!ersal ontological redem%tion feels muc li0e waiting for te Secondoming ormore accurately for Godot. -nd a!e we not all grown weary of waitingN e war we call MMte %olitical++weter niilist or not happiy goes on whie we watch ,ome &urn. -s Scmitt wrote of te relationsi% of earlyristianity to te *oman Lm%ire MMe belief tat a restrainer olds bac0 te end of te world %ro!ides te only bridge

between te notion of an escatological %aralysis of all uman e!ents and a tremendous istorical monolit li0e tat of teristian em%ire of te Germanic 0ings++ A")B.@ne does not need to belie!e in te !irtues of tat %articular MMistoricalmonolit++ to understand te dangers of escatological %aralysis. ut as 8a< 6eber obser!ed firstand ascetic 'uietudeleads so often so 'uic0ly and so effortlessly to te ciliastic !iolence tat 0nows no bounds=11 and as we a!e latelyobser!ed anew te millennial messianism of im%erial rulers and nomadic %artisans ali0e dominates te contem%orary

%olitical landsca%e. e true goal of tose wo say tere is no war is to eliminate te war tat actually e<ists by eliminatingtose 7yons and ygers and oter Sa!age easts wo say tere is a war. is war is te truly sa!age war. It is te war wewitness today. o amount of democrati/ation %acification or -mericani/ation will mollify its effects becausedemocrati/ation %acification and -mericani/ation are among te wea%ons used by tose wo say tere is no war to wageteir war to end all war. 6at is to be doneN If you are one wo says tere is a war and if you say it not because you gloryin it but because you fear it and ate it ten your goal is to limit it and its effects not eliminate it wic merely intensifiesit but limit it by drawing clear lines witin wic it can be fougt and clear lines between tose wo figt it and tose wodon+t lines between friends enemies and neutrals lines between combatants and noncombatants. ere are of courselegitimate doubts about weter tose ideal lines could e!er be drawn again= ne!erteless te 'uestion tat we sould as0is not ow can we establis %er%etual %eace but rater a more modest one an symmetrical relationsi%s be guaranteedonly by asymmetrical onesN -ccording to Scmitt istorically tis as been te case. MMe traditional Lurocentric order ofinternational law is foundering today as is te old nomos of te eart. is order arose from a legendary and unforeseen

disco!ery of a new world from an unre%eatable istorical e!ent. @nly in fantastic %arallels can one imagine a modernrecurrence suc as men on teir way to te moon disco!ering a new and iterto un0nown %lanet tat could be e<%loitedfreely and utili/ed effecti!ely to relie!e teir struggles on eart++ A3(B. 6e a!e since gone to te moon and a!e foundnoting on te way tere to e<%loit. 6e may soon go to 8ars if current leaders a!e teir way but te li0eliood of findinge<%loitable %o%ulations seems e'ually slim. Sal!ation troug s%atially delimited asymmetry e!en were it to be desired is

,ust not on te ori/on. -nd sal!ation troug globali/ation tat is troug global unity and e'uality is e'uallyim%ossible because today+s asymmetry is not so muc a locali/ation of te e<ce%tion as it is an in!isible generation of tee<ce%tion from witin tat formal ideal of unity a generation of te e<ce%tion as te difference between te uman and teinuman outlaw te MMSa!age east wit wom 8en can a!e no Society nor Security.++ 6e are terefore trown bac0u%on oursel!es wic is to say u%on tose artificial MMmoral %ersons++ wo act as our collecti!e %olitical identities. eyused to be called states. 6at tey will be called in te future remains to be seen. ut if we tin0 to establis adifferentiated unity of discrete %olitical entities tat once re%resented for Scmitt MMte igest form of order witin tesco%e of uman %ower++ ten we must symmetrically manage te necessary %airing of inclusion and e<clusion without

denying te MMforms of %ower and domination++ tat inescapa&y accom%any uman ordering. 6e must tin0 te %ossibilityof rougly e'ui!alent %ower relations rater tan fantasi)e te elimination of %ower from te %olitical uni!erse. isconcei!ably was also Scmitt+s solution. 6eter is idea of te %lurality of GroRrume could e!er be carried out undercontem%orary circumstances is to be sure more tan a little doubtful gi!en tat te Cnited States en,oys a mono%oly onguns goods and te Good in te form of a su%remely effecti!e ideology of uni!ersal MMdemocrati/ation.++ Still we woulddo well to de!ise !ocabularies tat do not ,ust em%atically re%eat %iloso%ically more so%isticated !ersions of te liberalideology of %ainless effortless uni!ersal e'uality. e s%ace of te %olitical will ne!er be created by a bloodlessen,aminian di!ine !iolence . or is it to be confused wit te s%ace of te sim%ly uman. o dream te dreams ofuni!ersal inclusion may satisfy an irre%ressible uman desire but it may also always %roduce recurring! asphy(iating

poitica nightmares of a&soute e(cusion.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

rediction9strategy panning

:ur scenario3e"auations are crucia for ethicay responsi&e poitics. theoretica %riti% is insufficient

we need reaistic as if stories to generate changes in practice.

8icael . /I;;I<S International #olitics 9 6ales A-berystwytB $5 e *ealist radition and te 7imits of International*elations %.1"5>1"&

8oreo!er te lin0s between sce%tical realism and %re!alent %ost>modern temes go more dee%ly tan tis %articularly astey a%%ly to attem%ts by %ost>structural tin0ing to reo%en 'uestions of res%onsibility and etics. In %art te goals of %ost>structural a%%roaces can be usefully caracterised to borrow Ste%en 6ites illuminating contrast as e<%ressions ofres%onsibility to oterness wic 'uestion and callenge modernist e'uations of res%onsibility wit a res%onsibility to act.- res%onsibility to oterness see0s to re!eal and o%en te constituti!e %rocesses and claims of sub,ects and sub,ecti!itiestat a foundational modernism as effaced in its narrow identification of res%onsibility wit a res%onsibility to actNDeconstruction can from tis %ers%ecti!e be seen as a %rinci%led stance unwilling to succumb to modernist essentialismwic in te name of res%onsibility assumes and reifies sub,ects and structures obscures forms of %ower and !iolencewic are constituti!e of tem and at te same time forecloses a consideration of alternati!e %ossibilities and %ractices.Tet it is my claim tat te wilful *ealist tradition does not lac0 an understanding of te contingency of %ractice or a !isionof res%onsibility to oterness. @n te contrary. its strategy of ob,ectification is %recisely an attem%t to bring togeter ares%onsibility to oterness and a res%onsibility to act witin a wilfully liberal !ision. e construction of a realm ofob,ecti!ity and calculation is not ,ust a conse'uence of a need to act > te framing of an e%istemic conte<t for successful

calculation. It is a form of res%onsibility to oterness an attem%t to allow for di!ersity and irreconcilability %recisely by > atleast initially > reducing te self and te oter to a structure of material calculation in order to allow a structure of mutualintelligibility mediation and stability. It is in sort a strategy of limitation a wilful attem%t to construct a sub,ect and asocial world limited > bot e%istemically and %olitically > in te name of a %olitics of toleration a liberal strategy tat onGray as recently caracterised as one of modus !i!endi. If tis is te case ten te deconstructi!e mo!e tat gains someof its weigt by contrasting itself to a non> or a%olitical ob,ecti!ism must engage wit te more com%le< contrast to asce%tical *ealist tradition tat is itself a constructed etical %ractice. is issue becomes e!en more acute if one considersI!er eumanns incisi!e 'uestions concerning %ostmodem constructions of identity action and res%onsibility. 3 eumann

%oints out te insigt tat identities are inesca%ably contingent and relationally constructed and e!en te claim tatidentitiesInesca%ably indebted to otemess do not in temsel!es %ro!ide a foundation for %ractice %articularly in situations wereidentities are sedimented and conflictually defined. In tese cases deconstruction alone will not suffice unless it candemonstrate a ca%acity to counter in %ractice Aand not ,ust in %iloso%ic %racticeB te essentialist dynamics it confrontsB44

Here a res%onsibility to act must go beyond deconstruction to consider !iable alternati!es and counter>%ractices.o ta0e tis criti'ue seriously is not necessarily to be sub,ect yet again to te straigtforward blac0mail of teLnligtenment and a narrow modernist !ision of res%onsibility.U 6ile an unwillingness to mo!e beyond a deconstructi!eetic of res%onsibility to oterness for fear tat an essentialist stance is te only Aor most li0elyB alternati!e e<%resses alegitimate concern it sould not license a retreat from suc 'uestions or teir %ractical demands. *ater suc situationsdemand also an e!aluation of te structures Aof identity and institutionsB tat migt viably be mobilised in order to offset teworst im%lications of !iolently e<clusionary identities It re'uires. as eumann nicely %uts it te generation of com%ellingas if stories around wic counter>sub,ecti!ities and %olitical %ractices can coalesce. 6ilful *ealism 1 submit arises outof an a%%reciation of tese issues and com%rises an attem%t to craft %recisely suc stories witin a broader intellectual andsociological analysis of teir conditions of %roduction %ossibilities of success and li0ely conse'uences. e 'uestion is towat e<tent are tese limits ca%able of success>and to wat e<tent migt tey be limits u%on teir own as%irations tores%onsibilityN ese are crucial 'uestions but tey will not be addressed by retreating yet again into furter re!ersals ofte same old dicotomies.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

7



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

rediction9strategy panning

Strategic anning and redictions do not =aturai)e /ar 3 >uasi redictions are racticay and

?um&y @sed to ,educe ioence

Vincent ouiot #D andidate in #olitical Science 9 Cni!. of oronto $7 : International Studies Quarterly EUSob,ecti!ismUoward a onstructi!ist 8etodologyF %. wiley;

-noter traditional way to assess !alidity is generali/ability can te findings tra!el from one case to anoterN ?rom aconstructi!ist %ers%ecti!e te time is ri%e to abandon te old dream of disco!ering nomotetic laws in social sciencesuman beings are refle<i!e and intentional creatures wo do not sim%ly obey to e<ternal laws. oneteless tere e<istcertain %atterns and regularities in social life wic constructi!ists are 0een to analy/e. -s #rice and *eus>Smit A1((2&5Bcorrectly %oint out Ure,ecting te %ursuit of law>li0e generali/ations does not entail a simultaneous re,ection of more

contingent generai)ations.U Suc contingent generali/ations usually deri!e from te abstracting %ower of conce%ts bysim%lifying reality troug ideali/ation conce%ts suc as constituti!e mecanisms for e<am%le aow for anaogies across

cases. 6eber A2))4 :1()4;B used to call tis Uidealty%esUJteoretical constructs tat de%art from social realities in order togain e<%lanatory s%in across cases. once%tual analogies are by definition unders%ecified as tey cannot fully %ut u% witcontingency. onse'uently te crucial %oint wile drawing contingent generali/ations is to be e<%licit about teir

boundaries of a%%licability AHo%f 2))23)B. Inside tese boundaries sob,ecti!ism may e!en yield to some sma3scae!

6uasi3predictions troug one of two %ats. @n te one and Uforward reasoningU and te de!elo%ment of %lausible

scenarios el%s narrow down the set of future possi&iities Aernstein et al. 2)))B. @n te oter and by focusing one<%laining cange inside of a delimited social situation one needs not %redict e!ery single de!elo%ment but only tose tatare i%ey to de"iate from an o&ser"ed pattern Acf. 6elc 2))52B.ontrary to %ositi!ism from a constructi!ist %oint of!iew tere cannot be suc a ting as te !alid inter%retation or teory. -s tere is no transcendental way to ad,udicateamong com%eting inter%retations !alidity ne!er is a blac0>or>wite matter= it is all sades of gray. Inside a style ofreasoning !alidation is a deliberati!e acti!ity wereby ,udgments e!ol!e in combination wit teir own criteria. In order tocon!ey te istoricity of scientific reason te best criterion to assess te relati!e !alidity of an inter%retation is itsincisi!eness tat is its ca%acity to Usee furterU tan %re!ious inter%retations. -s Geert/ A1(&325B e<%lains U- study is anad!ance if it is more incisi!eJwate!er tat may meanJtan tose tat %receded it= but it less stands on teir soulderstan callenged and callenging runs by teir side.U @b!ious from tis 'uote is tat incisi!eness is not a primordia and

uni"ersa criterion= it is &oth space3 and time3dependent. Indeed te degree of incisi!eness of an inter%retation ingesnot only on its substance but also on its audience. In tis regard tis article argues tat it is te a%%ro%riate combination ofe<%erience>near and e<%erience>distant conce%ts tat generates inter%retations tat not only Uma%e senseA to peope!

scientists and laymen ali0e but also Uadd sense U to already eld inter%retations. It is tis su%%lementary meaning due tote ob,ectification of sub,ecti!e meanings wic leads to an increased degree of incisi!eness. - constructi!istinter%retation is all te more incisi!e Aand tus !alidB tat it stri0es a fine balance between sub,ecti!e and ob,ectified0nowledge.@!erall te constructi!ist style of reasoning and sob,ecti!ism in %articular are animated by a 'uite similar logicof disco!ery as te one tat dri!es %ositi!istic metodologies. In 7a0atos A1(&)B famous argument %rogressi!e researc

%rograms are tose tat lead to te disco!ery of Uno!el facts.U 7i0e a good %ositi!ist 7a0atos %robably ad in mind ardfacts tat lead to uni!ersal rut. onstructi!ists ado%t a more down>to>eart low>0ey attitude wit regards to scientificdisco!ery. 6at a refined le!el of incisi!eness and te metodical %ractice of sob,ecti!ism el% disco!er is 'uite sim%ly acombination of sub,ecti!e and ob,ectified 0nowledge tat ma0es more sense of international %olitics tan %re!iousinter%retations. at incisi!eness owe!er is situated intersub,ecti!ely s%ea0ing. Social science is not as uni!ersal aseulogists of te Lnligtenment would li0e it to be but it is no ess worth pursuing to &etter understand the pressing

matters of word poitics.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

8



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

Immanent criti6ue

*he ff's Immament Briti6ue is <ore ffecti"e *han *heir Imaginary rchimedean osition

*icard 6yn Cones #rof. of International #olitics 9 -berystywyt ' :Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory %. &&;

e wor0 of te first generation of critical teorists does not offer muc s%ecific guidance in te tas0 of outlining watemanci%ation migt mean in %ractice. but te %receding discussion of teir wor0 suggests tree %oints tat tose attem%tingto o!ercome tis failing sould bear in mind. ?irst and most ob!iously !isions of concrete uto%ias must be consistent witwate!er dee%er notions of te grounding of emanci%atory %otential are de%loyed. us for e<am%le if te %ossibility ofemanci%ation is grounded in te economic realm ten logically de%ictions of a more emanci%ated order cannot sim%lyconcentrate on Anarrowly definedB %olitical institutions. Second descri%tions>indeed %rescri%tions>of a more emanci%atedorder must focus on reali/able uto%ias. ritical teorists must not lose sigt of te fact tat te coerence of teir %ro,ect isde%endent on teir utili/ation of the critica potentia of immanence. If tey succumb to te tem%tation of suggesting a

blue%rint for an emanci%ated order tat is unrelated to te %ossibilities inerent in te %resent>a tendency tat 8ar< andLngels argued was caracteristic of Uuto%ian socialistsU suc as *obert @wen A8ar< and Lngels 1(4 44>4"B>ten criticalteorists ha"e no way of ,ustifying teir arguments e%istemologically. -fter all to ,ustify a uto%ia tat is not already

%resent in some fonn witin te %re!ailing order re'uires te e<istence of an -rcimedean %oint according to wosestandards tis uto%ia migt be en!isioned>a %ossibility re,ected by critical teorists. us immanent criti'ue Aunderstood in

broad termsB remains a !ital %art of te melateoretical armory of critical teory. ?urtermore it is igly unli0ely tat a

!ision of an emanci%ated order tat is not based on immanent %otential will be poiticay efficacious. Cnless ancored in arealistic assessment of actually e<isting %ossibilities emanci%atory ideas are ardly li0ely to con!ince teir target audienceAwoe!er tey migt beB tat %rogressi!e cange is not only desirable but also %lausible and acie!able and tereforewort te effort or ris0 of trying to secure. us for bot e%istemological and %urely instrumental reasons concrete uto%iasmust be based on %ractices tat a!e some basis in %ree<isting bea!ior.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

ro&em so"ing good

ro&em3so"ing theory is necessary for addressing tangi&e "ioence

D.S.7. Car"is 7ecturer in I* at te Cni!ersity of Sydney International *elations and te allenges of #ostmodernism 2000 %.12(

@n all tese 'uestions one must answer no. is is not to say of course tat all teory sould be ,udged by its tecnicalrationality and %roblem>sol!ing ca%acity as -sley forcefully argues. ut to su%%ose tat %roblem>sol!ing tecnical teoryis not necessaryJor is in some way badJis a contem%tuous %osition tat abrogates any o%e of sol!ing some of tenigtmaris realities tat millions confront daily. -s Holsti argues we need as0 of tese teorists and teir teories teultimate 'uestion ESo watNF o wat %ur%ose do tey deconstruct %roblemati/e destabili/e undermine ridicule and

belittle modernist and rationalist a%%roacesN Does tis get us any furter ma0e te world better or enance te umanconditionN In wat sense can tis Edebate toward :a; bottomless %it of e%istemology and meta%ysicsF be ,udged %ertinentrele!ant el%ful or cogent to anyone oter tan tose foolis enoug to be scolastically e<cited by abstract and reconditedebate ontrary to -sley+s assertions ten a %oststructural a%%roac fails to em%ower te marginali/ed and in factabandons tem. *ater tan analy/e te %olitical economy of %ower wealt o%%ression %roduction or internationalrelations and render an intelligible understanding of tese %rocesses -sley succeeds in ostraci/ing tose e %ortends tore%resent by deli!ering an obscure and igly con!oluted discourse. If -sley wises to castise structural realism for itsabstractness and detacment e must be %re%ared also to face similar criticism es%ecially wen e so adamantly intendsis wor0 to address te real life %ligt of tose wo struggle at marginal %laces.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

10



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

State good

Briti6ues of State3Bentered Security Sacrifice the <ost Important oitica ctor 3 ;oss :ptions Ear

outweighs the danger of ;egitimation

@la!. ?. Knudsen #rof 9 SWdertWrn Cni! ollege $1 :Security Dialogue 32.3 E#ost>o%enagen Security Studies Desecuriti/ingSecuriti/ationF %. 3"4;

oug ardly te first to ma0e tis ar>gument Holsti sows con!incingly tat internal wars are now by far te mostim%ortant 0ind of war. is %oint as been used to argue tat interstate rela> tions a!e decreased in significance. If wecom%are two categories of relations intrastate and interstate tat is of course true in relati!e 'uantitati!e terms. Howe!erone must not o!erloo0 wat tose wars are about te control of te state a%%aratus and its territory. Internal wars testifynot to te disa%%earance of te state but to its continuing im%ortance. Hence te state must continue to be a central ob,ectof our wor0 in I* not least in security studies. 6e sould study te state – concei!ed as a %enetrated state – s%ecifically

because it %erforms essential security functions tat are rarely %erformed by oter ty%es of organi/ation suc as being Xte ma,or collecti!e unit %rocessing notions of treat= X te mantle tat cloa0s te e<ercise of elite %ower= X teorgani/ational e<%ression tat gi!es sa%e to communal Midentity+ and Mculture+= X te cief agglomeration of com%etenceto deal wit issue areas crossing ,u> risdictional boundaries= X te manager of territory$geogra%ical s%ace – includingfunctioning as a Mrece%tacle+ for income= and X te legitimi/er of autori/ed action and %ossession. *ecogni/ing te

%roblems of state>focused a%%roaces belongs to te &eginner's essons in I,. ere is te danger of legitimi/ing te stateas suc by %lacing it at te center of researc and of legitimi/ing tereby te re%ression and in,ustice wic on a massi!e

scale a!e been and still are %er%etrated in its name around te globe. Some draw te conclusion on tis basis tat statessould not be studied a stance wic is ob!iously unwarranted and pointess. e state is an instrument of %ower on ascale beyond most oter instruments of %ower. ?or tis reason alone %eeping a watch on ow it is used sould &e a top

priority for socia scientists. e mobili/ation – te assum%tion of te mantle – of state %ower by more or less arbitrarilycosen Aor self>selectedB indi!iduals or grou%s to act on bealf of all is someting wic re'uires continual

%roblemati/ation not least wen it is done !is>Y>!is oter collecti!ities. e state is aso the instrument of de> mocracy ona large scale in its most well>functioning forms. Sur!eying democ> racy+s state of ealt is a crucial res%onsibility forsocial scientists. ?inally wen it comes to %erforming collecti!e tas0s on a large scale te state is te most potentiay

effecti"e organi)ing instrument across an almost limitless range of ob,ecti!es. Security is among tem. In sort the

state is too centra to te large>scale business of uman life to be ignored or %ut aside weter for ideological or idealisticreasons. Still we need to recogni/e te istorical dimension in tis. It is not necessarily te state+s %resent form wicma0es it an im%ortant ob,ect of study= rater it is its %rimary function of being te largest uni!ersal>%ur%ose collecti!e>action unit around. Suc units re'uire study in all ci!ili/ations and at all times in uman istory regardless of teir name

or s%ecific functions. e 6est%a> lian %reoccu%ation of I* is terefore somewat o"erdrawn. *here is no need toapoogi)e for focusing on states or state3i%e units.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

11



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

State good

So"ereignty ro"ides the <ost ,eaistic ?ope for ,econciing Bompeting ?uman /is 3 *he ternati"e

,esuts in ither Internationa (poitation or ,enewed itism

ean et0e shtain #rof. of Social and #olitical Ltics 9 C>icago! $5 : Ethics & International Affairs E-gainst ewCto%ianism *es%onse to E-gainst te ew InternationalismF %. (4>5;

ur0es %rescri%ti!e argument is not only im%robable but also im%ossible as a course for a world of uman beings organi/ed %resently witin undreds of entities called states. His indictment of te state is relentless. Indeed reading ur0e you wouldne!er 0now tat states a!e carried uman as%irations and o%es= tat muc of te dignity and %ur%ose of uman beingsderi!es from teir location in particuar communities wit particuar histories and traditions and stories and languages.States at teir best el% to %rotect and to nouris certain goods. -s te late great Hanna -rendt %ut it Uo one can be aciti/en of te world as e :and se; is a citi/en of a %articular country.U ur0e wants Ucollecti!e decision>ma0ingU a world

beyond states. 6en one tin0s of te callenges of re%resentation and trans%arency in contem%orary statesJnone ofwic is any longer monoculturalJte notion tat anyting tat would meaningfully count as re%resentation could %ertainin a world body defies common sense. @ne would li0ely wind u% wit a small grou% of elites claiming to be someting li0ea Hegelian class of disinterested %ersons dictating %olicy. How could it be anyting else in te absence of any concreteaccount by ur0e of te %rinci%les of autority and legitimacy tat are to caracteri/e is %ro%osed global orderN @rwitout any com%elling account of ow %olitics is to be organi/edN 6at would be te %rinci%le of %olitical organi/ationN6at indeed would be te %ur!iew of citi/ensi%Jcons%icuous by its absence in is accountN ur0e critici/es my etic as

being allegedly based on a Unarrow dialogue between go!ernment elitesU ignoring tereby te U%rofound %roblem ofaccountability to citi/ens inerent in all security %olicy>ma0ing.U I cotild not agree more tat accountability is a U%rofound

%roblemU and tat to deal wit it re'uires certain sorts of domestic institutional arrangements. -nd of course in endorsingdemocracy I tereby endorse citi/en %artici%ation. e term UdomesticU already signals a distinction between a %articularset of arrangements culminating in states and arrangements beyond tat le!el. It is states tat can be %ressured to ta0eres%onsibility for aberrant bea!iorJfor e<am%le te C.S. mitary courts>martial of te out>ofcontrol rogues wo enactedteir own sordid %ornogra%ic fantasies wit %risoners in -bu Graib. @ne doesnt court>martial %eo%le for carrying outfaitfully an official %olicy. ere is most certainly fault to be found ereJweter in ambiguous statements about wat is

%ermitted or in insufficient training of tose guarding %risoners admittedly in a difficult situation o!er wic te C.S.military was ,ust beginning to ta0e control. 6e rigtly ,udge a military by weter it indicts and %unises %er%etrators ofwrong 6y is noting said about tis by ur0eN Surely ur0e owes us an account of a coherent set of institutiona

arrangements to carry out suc a role in a world caracteri/ed by etnic re!isionists murderous ,iadists one %artydictatorsi%s cild soldiering ra%e cam%aigns uman traffic0ing genocides corru%tion e<%loitation and all te rest. It is

troug states and troug te national contingents of international bodiesJweter of curces or te *ed ross oruman rigts grou%s or guilds of !arious %rofessional organi/ationsJtat %ersons can try to act and to organi)e. @ncetey do suc entities based in one state connect u% to oter suc entities to form international networ0s tat can %ut

%ressure simultaneously on %articular states and on rele!ant international or transnational bodies. o assume a world beyond tis sort of %olitics is to assume wat ne!er was and ne!er will beJnamely tat tere will no longer be a need toUreconcile competing human wis.U Defending as ur0e claims to be doing a Uliberal etic of war and %eaceU A%. 2Bmeans surely to tin0 of rules and laws and res%onsibility and accountability. 7iberalism is %remised on a world of statesand de%ending on weter one is a Kantian or some oter sort of liberal a world in wic te %rinci%le of state so!ereigntycan be o!erridden under some circumstances.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

12



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

ragmatic eadership

*ota re+ection of @S eadership woud increase imperiaism and cooniaism. /e shoud pragmaticay

reform eadership.

ristian ,@S3S<I* I* 9 -ustralian at+l M4 -merican #ower and 6orld @rder %. 121>1238y %reference ere is to ad!ocate a forward>leaning %rudential strategy of institutionally go!erned cange. y Zforward>leaning I mean tat te %rogressi!e reali/ation of cosmo%olitan !alues sould be te measure of successful %olitics ininternational society. -s long as gross !iola tions of basic uman rigts mar global social life we as indi!iduals and testates tat %ur%ort to re%resent us a!e obligations to direct wat %olitical influence we a!e to te im%ro!ement of teuman condition bot at ome and abroad. I recommend owe!er tat our a%%roac be %rudent rater tan im%rudent.Historically te !iolence of inter>state warfare and te o%%ression of im%erial rule a!e been dee%ly corrosi!e of basicuman rigts across te globe. e institutions of international society along wit teir constituti!e norms suc as so!er >eignty! non>inter!ention self>determination and limits on te use of force a!e el%ed to reduce tese corrosi!e forcesdramatically. e incidence of inter>state wars as declined mar0edly e!en toug te number of states as multi%lied andim%erialism and colonialism a!e mo!ed from being core institutions of international society to %ractices beyond te %ale.#rudence dictates terefore tat we lean forward witout losing our footing on !aluable institutions and norms. ismeans in effect gi!ing %riority to institutionally go!erned cange wor0ing wit te rules and %rocedures of internationalsociety rater tan against tem. 6at does tis mean in %racticeN In general I ta0e it to mean two tings. ?irst it meansrecogni/ing te %rinci%al rules of international society and acce%ting te obligations tey im%ose on actors including

oneself. ese rules fall into two broad categories %rocedural and substanti!e. e most s%ecific %rocedural rules areembodied in institutions suc as te Cnited ations Security ouncil wic is em%owered to determine te e<istence ofany treat to %eace breac of te %eace or act of aggression and te measures tat will be ta0en to maintain or restoreinternational %eace and security.2 8ore general yet e'ually crucial %rocedural rules include te cardinal %rinci%le tatstates are only bound by rules to wic tey a!e consented. L!en customary international law wic binds states witoutteir e<%ress consent is based in %art on te assum%tion of teir tacit consent. e substanti!e rules of international societyare legion but %era%s te most im%ortant are te rules go!erning te use of force bot wen force is %ermitted A,us ad

bellumB and ow it may be used A,us in belloB. Second wor0ing wit te rules and %rocedures of international society alsomeans recogni/ing tat te %rinci%al modality of inno!ation and cange must be communicati!e. at is establising newrules and mecanisms for acie!ing cosmo%olitan ends and international %ublic goods or modifying e<isting ones sould

be done troug %ersuasion and negotiation not ultimatum and coercion. - %remium must be %laced terefore onarticulating te case for cange on recogni/ing te concerns and interests of oters as legitimate on building u%on e<istingrules and on seeing genuine communication as a %rocess of gi!e and ta0e not demand and ta0e. Gi!ing %riority to

institutionally go!erned cange may seem an o!erly conser!ati!e strategy but it need not be. -s e<%lained abo!e teestablised %rocedural and substanti!e rules of international society a!e deli!ered international %ublic goods tat actuallyfurter cosmo%olitan ends albeit in a %artial and inade'uate fasion. Lroding tese rules would only lead to increases ininter>state !iolence and im%erialism and tis would almost certainly %roduce a radical deterioration in te %rotection of

basic uman rigts across te globe. Saying tat we ougt to %reser!e tese rules is %rudent not conser!ati!e. 8ore tantis toug we a!e learnt tat te institutions of international society a!e transformati!e %otential e!en if tis is onlynow being creati!ely e<%loited.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

1-



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

erm

Briti6ue one is not ade6uate to ater the current security en"ironment – oitica ction is =ecessary to

romote mancipation :"er Security

#inar #igin #rof. of I* 9 il0ent Cni! $5 : Regional Security in The iddle East %. ")>1;-dmittedly %ro!iding a criti'ue of e<isting a%%roaces to security re!ealing tose idden assum%tions and normati!e

%ro,ects embedded in old 6ar Security Studies is only a first ste%. In oter words from a critical security %ers%ecti!esef3refection! thin%ing and writing are not enough in themse"es. ey sould be com%ounded by oter forms ofpractice Atat is action ta0en on te groundB. It is indeed crucial for students of critical a%%roaces to re>tin0 security in

bot teory and %ractice by %ointing to %ossibilities for change immanent in word poitics and suggesting emanci%atory %ractices if it is going to fulfil te %romise of becoming a force of cange in world %olitics. ognisant of te need to findand suggest alternati!e %ractices to meet a broadened security agenda witout ado%ting militarised or /ero>sum tin0ingand %ractices students of critical a%%roaces to security a!e suggested te imagining creation and nurturing of security

communities as emancipatory practices Aoot 1((4a= oot and Vale 1((&B. -ltoug De!eta0s a%%roac to teteory$%ractice relationsi% ecoes critical a%%roaces conce%tion of teory as a form of %ractice te latter see0s to gofurter in sa%ing global %ractices. e distinction oot ma0es between tin0ing about tin0ing and tin0ing aboutdoing gras%s te difference between te two. oot A1((& 114B writes in0ing about tin0ing is im%ortant but moreurgently so is thin%ing a&out doing .... -bstract ideas about emanci%ation wi not sufficeF it is im%ortant for riticalSecurity Studies to engage wit te real by suggesting poicies agents and sites of cange to hep human%ind! in wole

and in %art to mo!e away from its structural wrongs. In tis sense %ro!iding a criti'ue of e<isting a%%roaces to securityre!ealing tose idden assum%tions and normati!e %ro,ects embedded in old 6ar Security Studies! is ony a first AalbeitcrucialB ste%. It is !ital for te students of critical a%%roaces to re>tin0 security in bot teory and practice.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

14



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

erm So"es – Strategic ,e"ersi&iity

*heir K o"ersimpifies#iopower is not a one3way street*he aff strategicay re"erses the appication

of power from reguation to incusion – So"es "aue to ife

Bamp&e 8 ADa!id Intl #olitics ewcastle E6riting Security Cnited States ?oreign #olicy and te #olitics of IdentityF %g.2)4>2)5B

e %olitical %ossibilities enabled by tis %ermanent %ro!ocation of %ower and freedom can be s%ecified in more detail bytin0ing in terms of te %redominance of te Ebio>%owerF discussed abo!e. In tis sense because te go!ernmental

%ractices of bio%olitics in 6estern nations a!e been increasingly directed toward modes of being and forms of life J suctat se<ual conduct as become an ob,ect of concern indi!idual ealt as been figured as a domain of disci%line and tefamily as been transformed into an instrument of go!ernmentJ te ongoing agonism between tose %ractices and tefree dom tey see0 to contain means tat indi!iduals a!e articulated a series of counterdemands drawn from tose newfields of concern. ?or e<am%le as te state continues to %rosecute %eo%le according to se<ual orientation uman rigtsacti!ists a!e %roclaimed te rigt of gays to enter into formal marriages ado%t cildren and recei!e te same ealt andinsurance benefits granted to teir straigt counter%arts. ese claims are a conse'uence of te %ermanent %ro!oca tion of

%ower and freedom in bio%olitics and stand as testament to te Estrategic re!ersibilityF of %ower relations if te terms ofgo!ernmental %ractices can be made into focal %oints for resistances ten te Eistory of go!ernment as te Mconduct ofconduct+ is interwo!en wit te istory of dissenting Mcounterconducts.F+3( Indeed te emergence of te state as te ma,orarticulation of Ete %oliticalF as in!ol!ed an unceasing agonism between tose in office and tose tey rule. State

inter!ention in e!eryday life as long incited %o%ular collecti!e action te result of wic as been bot resistance to testate and new claims u%on te state. In %articular Ete core of wat we now call Mciti/ensi%+ consists of multi%le bargainsammered out by rulers and ruled in te course of teir struggles o!er te means of state action es%ecially te ma0ing ofwar.F In more recent times constituencies associated wit women+s yout ecological and %eace mo!ements AamongotersB a!e also issued claims on society. ese resistances are e!idence tat te brea0 wit te discursi!e$nondiscursi!edicotomy central to te logic of inter%retation undergirding tis analysis is Ato %ut it in con!entional termsB not onlyteoretically licensed= it is em%irically warranted. Indeed e<%anding te inter%reti!e imagination so as to enlarge tecategories troug wic we understand te constitution of Ete %oliticalF as been a necessary %recondition for ma0ingsense of ?oreign #olicy+s concern for te etical borders of identity in -merica. -ccordingly tere are manifest %oliticalim%lications tat flow from teori/ing identity. -s udit utler concluded Ee deconstruction of identity is not tedeconstruction of %olitics= rater it establises as %olitical te !ery terms troug wic identity is articulated.F

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

15



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

erm so"es

ure re+ection fais – an engaged resistance wor%s &est

@le /ae"ersenior researcer for #eace and onflcit *easerc 1 @n security ed *onie D. 7i%scut/ %g. 5">&tt%$$www.ciaonet.org$boo0$li%scut/$li%scut/13.tml.

-n agenda of minimi/ing security in tis sense cannot be based on a classical critical a%%roac to security wereby teconce%t is criti'ued and ten trown away or redefined according to te wises of te analyst. e essential o%eration canonly be touced by faitfully wor0ing wit te classical meaning of te conce%t and wat is already inerent in it. elanguage game of security is in oter words a ,us necessitatis for treatened elites and tis it must remain. Suc an

affirmati"e reading! not at a aimed at re+ecting the concept! may &e a more serious chaenge to the esta&ished

discourse than a critica one for it recogni/es tat a conser!ati!e a%%roac to security is an intrinsic element in te logicof bot our national and international %olitical organi/ing %rinci%les. y ta0ing seriously tis UunfoundedU conce%t ofsecurity it is %ossible to raise a new agenda of security and %olitics. is furter im%lies mo!ing from a %ositi!e to anegati!e agenda in te sense tat te dynamics of securiti/ation and desecuriti/ation can ne!er be ca%tured so long as we

%roceed along te normal critical trac0 tat assumes security to be a %ositi!e !alue to be ma<imi/ed.

erm so"es3 poitics cannot &e separated from criticism

radau '04! laudia -radau ESecurity and te democratic scene desecuriti/ation and emanci%ationF ournal of International

*elations and De!elo%ment. 7,ubl,ana Dec 2))4. Vol. & Iss. 4= %g. 3How can desecuriti/ation be terefore tougtN is %a%er will argue contra te oS tat desecuriti/ation as to be firsttac0led %olitically. -ltoug 6O!er as indicated tat securiti/ation and desecuriti/ation are %olitical %rocesses not stableformulas A7austsen and 6O!er 2))) &3(B te oS lac0s a conce%t of %olitics or a clear definition of %olitici/ation.-longside im%licit references to a Scmittian %olitics AHuysmans 1((b= 6illiams 2))3B te oS teory is alsointers%ersed wit references to democratic %olitics. ese contradictory loyalties are muted in te attem%t to concei!e ofdesecuriti/ation analytically as a conce%tual tool allowing us to ma0e sense of te %rocesses of treat de>construction in tatsense similar to securiti/ation. @nly in te second instance does te oS try to deri!e %olitics from tis analytical basis.7audable as tis concern wit %olitical im%lications may be it is obli!ious of te fact tat our %olitical stance is constituti!eof our analysis of te world. 8oreo!er %olitical !acillation becomes translated into an analytical !acillation betweensecuriti/ation and desecuriti/ation. is article will terefore consider ow insufficient attention to %olitics in te teory ofsecuriti/ation undermines te conce%t of desecuriti/ation bot analytically and %olitically. eing intrinsically lin0ed witsecuriti/ation as its mirror image desecuriti/ation suffers from te same contradictions tat %lague te conce%t ofsecuriti/ation. e dicotomy of Scmittian$democratic %olitics is located in te !ery dicotomy te oS endorses betweens%eec act and e<ce%tional measures. e non>coice between tese two %olitical loyalties entails an im%ossible coice

between securiti/ation and desecuriti/ation. e oS indecisi!eness concerning te desirability of desecuriti/ation ma0es itclear tat %olitics is needed in te first instance and not as ulterior deri!ation gi!en tat te coice between te two conce%tsis actually a coice about te ty%e of %olitics we want. I sall contend tat desecuriti/ation needs to learn te lessons of tedemocratic %olitics of emanci%ation. De%ri!ed of %olitical commitment desecuriti/ation can only be a relati!ely sterile toolunfit for acting u%on te world and transforming %re!ailing social and %ower relationsi%s and te institutions into wictey are organised Ao< 'uoted in Krause and 6illiams 1((& <iB. Lmanci%ation itself is not a new conce%t in securitystudies and it as been used by bot ritical and A%artiallyB by feminist security studies. Tet teir circular definition ofemanci%ation as security de%ri!es te former of its truly transformati!e %otential. In contradistinction to tis tradition ofunderstanding emanci%ation I %ro%ose a conce%t of emanci%ation ins%ired by te wor0 of two %ost>8ar<ist ?renc

%iloso%ers [tienne alibar and ac'ues *anci\re and subse'uently %resent two %ossible strategies ofemanci%ation$desecuriti/ation for societal security. 4 -gainst te %roblematic assertion tat emanci%ation is coe!al tosecurity teir conce%t of emanci%ation is informed by te %rinci%les of uni!ersality and recognition.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

1



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

erm – positi"ism can't &e re+ected

(cuding positi"ism from critica studies destroys phiosophy

?abio ironi Scool of @riental and -frican Studies Cni!ersity of 7ondon #D student in te de%artment of #iloso%y in ardiff

Cni!ersity 2)10 EScience>7aden eoryF S%eculations Issue 1. %g. 31>33 KIs it a coincidence tat today we find %iloso%ers wo re,ect entire sections of teir own tradition wo Aif in a %ro!ocati!es%iritB label most recent %iloso%ical %ublications as Mboring+ and tat more generally and substantially ecoingroc0man+s claims find te most interesting %iloso%ical 'uestions in scientific %ublicationsN Does it mean tat

%iloso%ers co!et te same e%istemic status of teir tecno>scientific colleagues and tat tey feel de%ri!ed of teir roleas %ublic intellectualsN If suc a claim migt be asty wat I tin0 is indeed te case is tat continental %iloso%y as awole is going troug an internal restructuring of beliefs surely caused by te canges in our society but also dee%lymoti!ated by a necessity to %ro%ose an intellectual %roduction ca%able of doing constructi!e wor0 and of a!ing anJalbeitindirectJ %ractical %urcase on social cange. #ara%rasing 8ar< Aand doing an in,ustice to DerridaB one could say tatcontinental %iloso%y now feels tat it is not enoug to deconstruct te world but tat it is time to find a meta%ysicalground from wic it can be canged. -nd te main cannel troug wic tis reno!ation of %iloso%y is to beaccom%lised is tat of a new regard towards te natural sciences A,ust as adiou+s %iloso%y grounds te %ossibility ofcange into a matematical ontologyB tose sciences tat recent AcriticalB continental %iloso%y as so far dismissed

because ofJin Harman+s wordsJMfear and arrogance+ ultimately caused by an Minferiority com%le<+. ow if my argumentso far is at all sound te ultimate callenge for s%eculati!e realismJand for %iloso%y as a wole if tis mo!ement is

indeed a %roduct of our /eitgeistJ is to clarify its %osition in te istorical dialectic between te natural sciences andwate!er res%onds to te name of Mumanities+ Aa term wic clearly a%%ears increasingly unfit to designate any %iloso%ytat aims at o!ercoming te strictures of antro%ocentric tougtB. - new 0ind of %iloso%yJwose label as M#ost>ontinental+ is defended by on 8ullar0ey Jis attem%ting to %lace itself at tat ,uncture between te radical science>s0e%tical %ositions tat %receded it on one side and te danger of losing any identity and being swallowed wole byem%irical science on te oter. *ecently Harman as claimedJrefuting some accusations of being dismissi!e of scienceJ tat I am not Mdismissi!e+ of science. I lo!e science. 6at I am dismissi!e of is te notion tat science can re%lacemeta%ysics. @r rater I tin0 tat te meta%ysics lying at te basis of te science worsi% found in some sectors ofs%eculati!e realism is a wea0 one and needs to be if not Meliminated+ ten at least se!erely im%ro!ed. wile on te oterand rassier is a%%y to embrace e!en te worst Ain te contem%orary %iloso%ical climateB of te caracteri/ations tatof scientism since te indiscriminate use of tis e%itet as a blan0et term of abuse by irate %enomenologists con!icts ofMscientism+ anyone wo ta0es it on scientific trust tat te eart orbits around te sun or wo belie!es in te e<istence of

blac0 oles and neutrinosJnotwitstanding all %enomenological e!idence to te contraryJ ten we can only %lead

guilty as carged. If Mscientism+ sim%ly means refusing te obligatory subordination of em%irical science to transcendental %iloso%y ten by our ligts tere is not nearly enoug Mscientism+ in contem%orary %iloso%y. If in te face of tis %ossible fusion of te Mtwo cultures+ %iloso%y is to conser!e an identity tis means retaining te %ossibility of doingmeta%ysics wile re,ecting its %ostcritical !etoing. is will be %ossible by eiter constructi!ely callenging its scientificreduction or by re,ecting te M%enomenological stalemate+ by in,ecting more scientism into %iloso%ical s%eculation.-long te way we must carefully a!oid te o%%osite reactions to te common Minferiority com%le<+ of %iloso%y wiccan ta0e te sa%e of eiter an arrogant dismissal of science or of a samed and somewat cra!en a%ology for %iloso%y+s

blindness to te %ower of science. onse'uently it seems tat te 'uestion tat Ms%eculati!e realism+ attem%ts A!ariouslyB togi!e an answer to Aand in fact to be an answer toB is ow could a Mnew %iloso%y+ be built troug a mature relationsi% of mutual e<cange wit te natural sciencesN If te de!elo%ment of tese 'uestions as to remain te tas0 for a wor0 to comeAor already in %rogressB wat I o%e to a!e delineated in tis %a%er are some forces in te cultural networ0 in wic anew generation of %iloso%ersJweter we call it a %ost>continental or a s%eculati!e realist oneJis today de!elo%ing.?or te time being my suggestions ere are merely s%eculati!e.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

17



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

t fais – no change

GGG*he pan criti6ues "ioent forms of hegemonic authority. *he aternati"e a&andons hope for poitica

action in the name of criti6ue

unning 2007 :eroen 7ecturer in Int+l #olitics 9 C of 6ales Go!ernment and @%%osition 42.3 E- ase for ritical errorismStudiesNF;

e notion of emanci%ation also crystalli/es te need for %olicy engagement. ?or unless a Mcritical+ field see0s to be %olicyrele!ant wic as o< rigtly obser!es means combining Mcritical+ and M%roblem>sol!ing+ a%%roaces it does not fulfil itsMemanci%atory+ %otential.(4 @ne of te tem%tations of Mcritical+ a%%roaces is to remain mired in criti'ue and deconstructionwitout mo!ing beyond tis to reconstruction and %olicy rele!ance.Vital as suc criti'ues are te callenge of a criticallyconstituted field is also to engage wit %olicy ma0ers – and Mterrorists+ – and wor0 towards te reali/ation of new

%aradigms new %ractices and a transformation owe!er modestly of %olitical structures. at after all is te originalmeaning of te notion of Mimmanent criti'ue+ tat as istorically under%inned te Mcritical+ %ro,ect and wic in ootswords in!ol!es Mte disco!ery of te latent %otentials in situations on wic to build %olitical and social %rogress+ aso%%osed to %utting forward uto%ian arguments tat are not reali/able. @r as oot wryly obser!es Mtis means buildingwit ones feet firmly on te ground not constructing castles in te air+ and as0ing Mwat it means for real %eo%le in real

%laces+.(" *ater tan sim%ly criti'uing te status 'uo or noting te %roblems tat come from an un>%roblemati/edacce%tance of te state a Mcritical+ a%%roac must in my !iew also concern itself wit offering concrete alternati!es. L!enwile istorici/ing te state and o%%ositional !iolence and callenging te states role in re%roducing o%%ositional !iolence

it must wrestle wit te fact tat Mte conce%t of te modern state and so!ereignty embodies a coerent res%onse to many ofte central %roblems of %olitical life+ and in %articular to Mte %lace of !iolence in %olitical life+. L!en wile Mde>essentiali/ing and deconstructing claims about security+ it must concern itself wit Mow security is to be redefined+ and in

%articular on wat teoretical basis.(& 6eter because tose critical of te status 'uo are wary of becoming co>o%ted byte structures of %ower Aand teir em%asis on instrumental rationalityB( or because %olicy ma0ers a!e for ob!iousreasons Aincluding te failure of many Mcritical+ scolars to offer %olicy rele!ant ad!iceB a greater affinity wit Mtraditional+scolars te role of Me<%ert ad!iser+ is more often tan not filled by Mtraditional+ scolars.(( e result is tat %olicy ma0ersare insufficiently callenged to 'uestion te basis of teir %olicies and de!elo% new %olicies based on immanent criti'ues. -notable e<ce%tion is te readiness of Luro%ean Cnion officials to enlist te ser!ices of bot Mtraditional+ and Mcritical+scolars to ad!ise te LC on ow better to understand %rocesses of radicali/ation.1)) ut tis would a!e been im%ossibleif more critically oriented scolars suc as Horgan and Sil0e ad not been ready to coo%erate wit te LC. Stri!ing to be

%olicy rele!ant does not mean tat one as to acce%t te !alidity of te term Mterrorism+ or sto% in!estigating te %oliticalinterests beind it. or does it mean tat eac %iece of researc must a!e %olicy rele!ance or tat one as to limit ones

researc to wat is rele!ant for te state since te Mcritical turn+ im%lies a mo!e beyond state>centric %ers%ecti!es. Lnd>users could and sould tus include bot state and non>state actors suc as te ?oreign @ffice and te 8uslim ouncil ofritain and Hi/b ut>arir= te ortern Ireland @ffice and te I*- and te Clster Cnionists= te Israeli go!ernment andHamas and ?ata Aas long as te o!erarcing %rinci%le is to reduce te %olitical use of terror woe!er te %er%etratorB. Itdoes mean toug tat a critically constituted field must wor0 ard to bring togeter all te fragmented !oices from

beyond te Mterrorism field+ to ma<imi/e bot te fields rigour and its %olicy rele!ance. 6eter a critically constitutedMterrorism studies+ will attract te fragmented !oices from outside te field de%ends largely on ow broadly te termMcritical+ is defined. ose wo assume Mcritical+ to mean Mritical eory+ or M%oststructuralist+ may not feel comfortableidentifying wit it if tey do not temsel!es subscribe to suc a narrowly defined Mcritical+ a%%roac. *ater to ma<imi/eits inclusi!eness I would follow 6illiams and Krauses a%%roac to Mcritical security studies+ wic tey define sim%ly as

bringing togeter Mmany %ers%ecti!es tat a!e been considered outside of te mainstream of te disci%line+.1)1 ismeans refraining from establising new criteria of inclusion$e<clusion beyond te Anormati!eB e<%ectation tat scolarsself>refle<i!ely 'uestion teir conce%tual framewor0 te origins of tis framewor0 teir metodologies and dicotomies=

and tat tey istorici/e bot te state and Mterrorism+ and consider te security and conte<t of all wic im%lies amongoter tings an attem%t at em%aty and cross>cultural understanding.1)2 -nyting more normati!e would limit te abilityof suc a field to create a genuinely interdisci%linary non>%artisan and inno!ati!e framewor0 and e<clude !aluable insigts

borne of a broadly Mcritical+ a%%roac suc as tose from conflict resolution studies wo des%ite wor0ing witin aMtraditional+ framewor0 offer im%ortant insigts by mo!ing beyond a narrow military understanding of security to a broader understanding of uman security and %lacing !iolence in its wider social conte<t.1)3 us a %oststructuralist as no greater claim to be %art of tis Mcritical+ field tan a realist wo loo0s beyond te state at te interaction between te !iolent grou%and teir wider social constituency.1)4

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

18



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

t fais – securiti)es security

*heir monoithic depiction of security is incoherent. *hey securiti)e themse"es against security! which

re3affirms the worst manifestations. :ny the affirmati"e attempts to engage security from within


%oliticsF Security Dialogue !ol. 43 no. 3 une 2)12B-ltoug for -radau te solution to security+s barred uni!ersality lies not in desecuriti/ation – te o%enagen Scool+s

%referred strategy – in does lie ne!erteless in a!oiding security+s Scmittian mode of %olitics.24 Howe!er as 8att8cDonald A2)) 5)B %ertinently recogni/es a!oiding securiti/ation neglects te %otential to contest its !ery meaningdesecuriti/ation is made Mnormati!ely %roblematic+ inasmuc as a %reference for it relies on Mte negati!e designation oftreat+ wic Mser!es te interest of tose wo benefit from P e<clusionary articulations of treat in contem%oraryinternational %olitics furter siencing "oices articulating alternati!e !isions for wat security means and ow it migt beacie!ed+. at is to say te recourse of always !iewing securiti/ation as negati!e must be resisted instead conte(ts

shoud &e re"eaed in which utterances of security can &e su&+ect to a poitics of progressi"e change.

In 0ee%ing wit 8cDonald oot+s understanding of security as emanci%ation critici/es Asecurity asB securiti/ation for itsessentialism in fi<ing te meaning of security into a state>centric militari/ed and /ero>sum framewor0. *e,ecting outrigtsecuriti/ation+s necessarily Scmittian ineritance oot A2))& 1"5B %oints instead to a more %ositi!e renderingSuc a static !iew of te :securiti/ation; conce%t is all te odder because security as a s%eec act as istorically also

embraced %ositi!e non>militarised and non>statist connotationsP. Securitisation studies li0e mainstream strategic studiesremains somewat stuc0 in old 6ar mindsets.?or oot terefore securiti/ation is not always about te Me<%ectation of ostility+. - %ositi!e securiti/ation embraces te

%otential for human e6uaity unhampered &y the cosure of poitica &oundaries tat -radau %ostulates. ootianemanci%atory communities are constituted by te recognition of indi!iduals as %ossessing multi%le identities tat cut acrosse<isting social and %olitical di!ides. In tis sense @ters are also sel!es in a !ariety of ways. roug tisinterconnectedness te recognition of us all as uman ma0es salient te !alues tat bind suc as com%assion reci%rocity

,ustice and dignity Aoot 2))& 13"–4)B.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

1



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1


Hou shoud err on the side of specifics instead of painting a security issues with one &road stro%e.

Strategic engagement is necessary

*icard 6yn Cones #rofessor International #olitics – -berystwyt Cni!ersity $ASecurity, Strategy, and Critical Theory %. 155>1"3Bere are a number of %ossible res%onses to tese criticisms. @ne res%onse arises from arguments tat em%asi/e te lin0 betweennotions of security and dee%er assum%tions concerning te nature of %olitics. 6al0er for e<am%le argues tat te conce%t of securitywill ine"ita&y e<%and to include issues tat are not military in nature. is e<%ansion will occur because te 'uestions regardingsecurity are closely im%licated in te legitimation of te so!ereign state tat is in dee%er notions of %olitics. us In te end it asne!er been %ossible to %in security down to concrete %ractices or institutions wit any great %recision no matter ow insistent te!oices of military and defence establisments migt be. e wole %oint of conce%ts of security tat are tied to te claims of stateso!ereignty is tat tey must e<%and to encom%ass e!eryting witin te state at least in its e!er %otential state of emergency. A*.6al0er 1((& &"B -s a result oncerns about :broadening; te %ractices of security %olicy into oter s%eres of %olitical life maywell be founded... but te e<tent to wic %ractices of security are already %art of te broader social %olitical economic and culturalarenas is not something that can simpy &e wished away. A*. 6al0er 1((& &"B e im%lication of tis argument is tat contrary toDeudney+s !iew te terrain of security sould not sim%ly be abandoned to traditional militari/ed conce%tuali/ations. *ater becausete conce%t of security is ine!itably broadened as a result of its connection to dee%er issues concerning te legitimacy of !arious forms ofgo!ernance its meaning Atat is wat is signified by attacing te a%%ellation EsecurityF to a %articular issueB must be dis%uted. e meaning of te

term EsecurityFJits significationJlies at te eart of @le 6O!er+s inno!ati!e Es%eec actF a%%roac. is a%%roac focuses on te ways in wicattacing te label EsecurityF to a %articular %roblem gi!es tat %roblem s%ecial status and legitimates te Ee<traordinary measuresF ta0en by statere%resentati!es to deal wit it A6O!er 1((4 "B. A6O!er+s arguments a!e since mo!ed beyond teir original formulation. ese canges will bere!iewed later.B Security discourse is used to identify some treats as being Ee<istentialF tat is %art of te Edrama of sur!i!al.F In tis way EIssues:become; %rased as Mno way bac0+ after we a!e lost our so!ereignty$identity$te sustainability of te eco–system it will be too late= terefore it islegitimate tat we ta0e e<traordinary measuresF A6O!er 1((4 1)ff.B. ese measures can include state–sanctioned 0illing sus%ension of ci!il rigtsconfiscation of %ri!ate resources and so on. 6O!er as res%onded directly to ef Huysmans+s worries about te broadening of te conce%t ofsecurity. He argues tat te intention of suc a mo!e is not to trigger a traditional security–ty%e res%onse to EnewF security issues A6O!er 1((4 1(B.*ater 6O!er belie!es tat analysts are ,ustified in broadening security %recisely because %oliticians already use te term in relation to %roblemstat are nonmilitary in caracter but are still regarded as e<istential treats to te %olitical orderJte state A6O!er 1((5 51–53B. In sort becausestate elites attac te label EsecurityF to nonmilitary issues analysts need to focus on teir reasons for doing so. 6at %ower is signified or calledu%on by te use of te termN -nalysts must broaden teir conce%tuali/ation of security because te term as already been broadened in

%ractice. ut tat said 6O!er also seems to acce%t muc of te force of Huysmans+s and Deudney+s misgi!ings. He writes Security as wit anyconce%t carries wit it a istory and a set of connotations tat it cannot esca%e. -t te eart of te conce%t we still find someting to do wit defenseand te state. -s a result addressing an issue in security terms still e!o0es an image of treat–defense allocating to te state an im%ortant role inaddressing it. is is not always an im%ro!ement. A6O!er 1((5 4&B ecause e regards te effects of attacing te label EsecurityF to an issue asfi<ed AEa conser!ati!e a%%roac to security is an intrinsic element in te logic of bot our national and international %olitical organi/ing %rinci%lesF:6O!er 1((5 5"–5&;B 6O!er ad!ocates te Edesecuriti/ationF of as many issues as %ossible A6O!er 1((5 %assimB. o desecuriti/e an issue is toremo!e it from te realm of te %olitics of sur!i!al and tus to render it amenable to more coo%erati!e forms of bea!ior. -ltoug 6O!er+sargument is %remised on assum%tions different from tose of Deudney and Huysmans e arri!es at similar conclusions. ?or Deudney in %articularEsecurityF cannot esca%e its association wit te teory and %ractice of so–called national security. us te conce%t wit all its attendant baggagesould not be used as a %rism troug wic oter issues are !iewed. ?or 6O!er owe!er EsecurityF is already broad because it is used by stateelites to ,ustify e<traordinary measures ta0en in a range of issues tat are %ercei!ed as a treat to teir %olitical order+s sur!i!al. ut 6O!er alsoargues tat it would be %referable if te termJbecause of its baggageJwere used in relation to as few issues as %ossible. us 6O!er alsoultimately wises to narrow te usage of EsecurityF or more correctly Esecuriti/ation.F #olitically s%ea0ing 6O!er+s strategy of desecuriti/ationas real limitations. 6at of tose %roblems tat are a treat to sur!i!alN Sould grou%s abandon te mobili/ation %otential tat isundou&tedy generated by using te term EsecurityFN @ne %resumes not but ten are e<istential treats to security sim%ly to beabandoned to traditional /ero–sum militari/ed forms of tougt and actionN ese 'uestions igligt two significant wea0nesses in6O!er+s original formulation of te s%eec act a%%roac A1B its state–centrism and A2B te a%%arent unwillingess to 'uestion tecontent or meaning of security. State–centrism is te %oint at issue in te ne<t section. Suffice it to say ere tat in is initialformulation of te s%eec act teory of security 6O!er attem%ted to yo0e is insigts concerning securiti/ation to a torouggoingstate–centrism A6O!er 1((4 1((5B. -s we a!e seen e was interested only in ow states securiti/ed issues in order to ,ustifye<traordinary measures by states 6O!er !iewed te grammar of security as inerently statist. In doing so e actually undermined

much of the usefuness of te s%eec act a%%roac. Its A%otentialB great strengt is tat it encourages analysts to interrogate te %olitics of ow particuar treats are securiti/ed in order to mobili/e and legitimate %articular res%onses to tem.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

20



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1


*heir impact is a sef3fufiing prophecy. *he essentiai)e nationa identity as "ioent! &oc%ing any

aternati"es.Vibe0e Scou D,S= o%enagen $- EIn Searc of 8onsters to DestroyNF International Relations 1& A2B %.2(>3)

o suggest suc a recasting of identity as %ossible owe!er is to raise te meta>teoretical 'uestion of refle<i!ity in umanagency. 6at is im%lied in cronicling a dri!e towards securiti/ation in 2)t century self>narrationN Is tere im%licit in teidentification of suc a %attern any sort of necessity suggestedN @r does te fact tat -merica as come to narrate itself inan unaccommodating and obstructi!e way sim%ly mean tat it migt do well to consider oter and more congenial modesof establising itself in te futureN ese are 'uestions all too rarely raised in te em%irical wor0 of %oststructural analysisand te result as been an a%%arent ga% between te conclusions reaced in its meta>teory Awere te floating andundecideable nature of narrati!e and identity is stressedB and tose arri!ed at in its em%irical wor0 Awere %atterns ofidentity and interest are often lamented as fairly irre!ersibleB.& - %rominent e<am%le is Da!id am%bell and isconclusions on te %atterns of CS foreign %olicy. Des%ite te fact tat am%bell e<%licitly states is normati!e commitmentto E%ry o%en te s%ace for alternati!esF is une6ui"oca statements on te fi(ity of merican identity lea!es its readerless con!inced of te room for reflecti!e manoeu!res. o am%bell namely te inclination to securiti/e is not a istoricallyde!elo%ed -merican %roblem but rater a logic inerent to identity itself since Esecurity as te absence of mo!ementwould result in deat !ia stasisF.( ontrary to suc essentialism I argue tat te %roblem is not one tat comes wit

identity as suc but rater one created by %articular modes of self>narration.() rue enoug my argument about te'ualitati!ely fi<ed and tus s%atial nature of rationalist liberal e<%ansion and te dri!e tat tis creates towards conflict andinsecurity runs %arallel to am%bell+s claim tat in -merica Ete s%atial is gi!en %riority o!er te tem%oral and teistoricalF.(1 Distinguising te liberal from te e<ce%tionalist narrati!e owe!er I attem%t to %lace tat logic in sociallanguage – in te way tat -merica as s%o0en itself into being > and tus to 0ee% o%en to te %ossibility of Earguing itawayF. is is not only a teoretical but also a %olitical %oint to be made since to state tat Ete constant re>articulation ofdanger troug foreign %olicy isPnot a treat to state+s identityF but rater Eits condition of e<istenceF(2 is to endorserater tan re,ect te dangerous logic at %lay. E6e a!eF as *einold iebur insisted Eno rigt to s%ea0 of ine!itabilities inistory. 8en are always agentsF(3 and to say tat nations are !ade is to say tat tey can be made o!er.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

21



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

t fais – no framewor% for "aue

*he criti6ue &egs the 6uestion of "aue. Stri"ing to escape security ony ma%es sense in the conte(t of

positi"e "aues! which the aternati"e e(picity undermines. It amounts to the "ioent imposition of one

specific mode of poitics against a others

,oe! 12 A#aul *oe -ssociate #rofessor in te De%artment of International *elations and Luro%ean Studies at entral Luro%eanCni!ersity uda%est EIs securiti/ation a Mnegati!e+ conce%tN *e!isiting te normati!e debate o!er normal !ersus e<traordinary %oliticsF Security Dialogue !ol. 43 no. 3 une 2)12B

Liter way 6O!er imself 'uestions te utility of setting Mstandards of ,udgement+ suc as outcome against securiti/ation.Directing is comments largely at te -berystwyt Scool 6O!er re,ects te conse'uentialist etics e ascribes to oot+sa%%roac. ommenting tat as a Mstandard for measuring !arious concrete %olicies and actions+ security as emanci%ationMreduces %olitics to outcomes+ 6O!er contends tat M%olicies are always relational teir effects and im%licationscontingent on oter actors P and terefore not amenable to suc ty%es of assessment+. In oter words %articularsecuriti/ations cannot be %ositi!e or negati!e %er se= rater teir 'uality Mde%ends on wo else is in!ol!ed doing wat+A6O!er 2)11 4"&B. 8oreo!er as a M%olitical %rogramme+ tat Moffers a !ision of ow to im%ro!e te uman lot+ ootianemanci%ation is logically %rior to securiti/ation= tat is to say ,udgment o!er securiti/ation o!er ow an issue is andledcan only ma0e sense in te s%ecific conte<t of suc a %rogramme. In oter words altoug 6O!er A2)11 4"(B also refersto te Mine!itable negati!e effects of any securiti/ation+ for im Mte logic of necessity te narrowing of coice teem%owerment of a smaller elite+ te !alue of securiti/ing or desecuriti/ing can ony &e determined in reation to what

$state of &eing' is a %riori desired. -ccordingly ma0ing ,udgments about desired states of being warrants considerationnot only of te A%ositi!eB !alues according to wic for e<am%le inclusion is made %ossible but also of tose Anegati!eB!alues according to wic e<clusion migt be ,ustified. e recognition of te !alue of uman e'uality ma0es %ossible tecelebration of some differences and te condemnation of oters. -s oot A2))& 14)B asserts te fashiona&e in+unction

to cee&rate difference shoud &e re+ected . 6y sould we celebrate te Mdifference+ e<ibited by cultures dominated byracist ideas or religious bigots or by e<treme nationalists or by tose wit traditional %ractices tat in!ol!e cruelty towardsteir wea0est membersN P y all means let us en,oy differences between %eo%leAsB wen tey add to te ricness of umane<%erience. A*eBengagement wit te normati!ely defined debate o!er normal !ersus e<traordinary %olitics shoud

therefore stri"e not to escape from security Asecuriti/ationB but rater to Mbrea0 bac0 in+ %recisely to recaim it as a site

for such contestations o!er te %ossibilities for inclusion$e<clusion.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

22



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

t fais – cede the poitica

Desecuriti)ation Bedes Security to the right 3 oitica engagement is =ecessary

@la!. ?. Knudsen #rof 9 SWdertWrn Cni! ollege M1 :Security Dialogue 32.3 E#ost>o%enagen Security Studies Desecuriti/ingSecuriti/ationF %. 3"";

- final danger in focusing on te state is tat of building te illusion tat states a!e im%enetrable walls tat tey a!e aninside and an outside and tat noting e!er %asses troug. 6olfers+s billiard balls a!e contributed to tis misconce%tion.ut te state conce%ts we sould use are in no need of suc an illusion. 6oe!er critici/es te field for suc sins in te

%ast needs to go &ac% to the iterature. @f course we must continue to be o%en to a fran0 and unbiased assessment of tetransnational %olitics wic significantly influence almost e!ery issue on te domestic %olitical agenda. e first decade ofmy own researc was s%ent studying tese %enomena – and I disa!ow none of my conclusions about te state+slimitations. Tet I am not asamed to tal0 of a domestic %olitical agenda. -nyone wit a little 0nowledge of Luro> %ean

%olitics 0nows tat Danis %olitics is not Swedis %olitics is not German %olitics is not ritis %olitics. or would Iesitate for a moment to tal0 of te role of te state in transnational %olitics were it is an im%ortant actor toug onlyone among many oter com%eting ones. In te world of transnational relations te e<%loitation of states by interest grou%s

– by teir assum%tion of roles as re%resentati!es of states or by con!incing state re%resentati!es to argue teir case anddefend teir narrow interests – is a significant class of %enomena today as muc as yesterday. owards a *enewal of teLm%irical ?oundation for Security Studies ?undamentally te sum of te foregoing list of sins blamed on te o%en>agen scool amounts to a lac0 of attention %aid to ,ust tat Mreality+ of security wic @le 6O!er consciously cose to

lea!e aside a decade ago in order to %ursue te %olitics of securiti/ation instead. I cannot claim tat e is !oid of interest inte em%irical as%ects of security because muc of te 1((& boo0 is de!oted to em%irical concerns. Howe!er te attentionto agenda>setting – confirmed in is most recent wor0 – draws attention away from te im%ortant issues we need to wor0on more closely if we want to contribute to a better understanding of Luro%ean security as it is currently de!elo%ing. atine!itably re'uires a more consistent interest in security %olicy in te ma0ing – not ,ust in te de!elo%ment of alternati!esecurity %olicies. e dan> ger ere is tat as alternati!e %olicies are li0ely to fail grandly on te %olitical arena crucialdecisions may be made in te M traditiona' sector of security % oicyma%ing unheeded &y any &ut the most uncritica

minds.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

2-



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

2F ,eps K

*he Briti6ue's :&session with ,epresentations #oc%s =H roducti"e Bhange to Internationa

,eations 3 It Breates an @na"oida&e epistemoogica crisis

8orten a&+rn #D in te De%artment of #olitical Science 9 -arus $4 : iddle East and Palestine" #lo$al Politics and

Regional Conflict, Eulture lind and ulture linded Images of 8iddle Lastern onflicts in International *elationsF %. "&>;;

-s mentioned before te relational %ers%ecti!e is a criti'ue of bot te neglect of te issue of @terness by te I*mainstream and te way in wic %ro%onents of an essentialist a%%roac relate to te @ter. ?or tis reason it would benatural to assume tat %ro%onents of tis second attem%t to Uculturali/eU te study of international relations would be

%articularly 0een to address te 'uestion of ow to ac0nowledge cultural di!ersity witout committing te sins oforientalism. Indeed tis is also wat Said is stressing in te introduction to @rientalism e most im%ortant tas0 of allwould be to underta0e studies in contem%orary alternati!es to @rientalism to as0 ow one can study oter cultures and

%eo%les from a libertarian or nonre%ressi!e and non>mani%ulati!e %ers%ecti!e. A1((5 24B Howe!er e ten goes on to addtat Utese are all tas0s eft em&arrassingy incompete in tis studyU ASaid 1((5 24B. 7oo0ing at oter analyses based ona relational conce%tion of culture it becomes a%%arent tat te latter remar0 is !ery telling for tis 0ind of understanding ofculture as a wole Je.g. Doty 1((3 315B. Des%ite a blan0 re,ection of te uni!ersalism of I* mainstream and at least in

%rinci%le a recognition of te e<istence of different @ters wo are not only %ro,ections of own fantasies and desires in %ractice %ro%onents of tis alternati!e a%%roac noneteless usually lea!e te 'uestion of ow to address and a%%roac te

actual cultural @ter unanswered. is migt !ery well be an unintended outcome of te %re!iously mentioned radicalconstructi!ism associated wit tis a%%roac. us by stressing ow te re%resentation of te @ter is intimately related tote construction of identities or a subtle way of %erforming %ower one ris0s being caugt in a 0ind of e%istemological andmoral crisis caracteri/ed by a nagging doubt about weter it really is %ossible to gain any 0nowledge of @ters or if weare ,ust %ro,ecting our own fantasies and by a %ronounced fear tat our re%resentations are silencing !oices so tat weunwittingly are ta0ing %art in a subtle %erformance of %ower AHastru% 1((2 54B. In merely dealing wit te relationsi%

between te re%resentcr and is re%resentations tese dilemmas can &e Aa"oided.U Howe!er at te same time one writes

off the opportunity to relate to cultural di!ersity as anyting but discursi!e %roducts of ones own fantasies and %ro,ections. is is %recisely te criti'ue tat su%%orters of te relational understanding of culture a!e been facing. ?romtis %ers%ecti!e it a%%ears less sur%rising tat Said as ad so muc more to offer on te dynamics of 6esternre%resentations of te 8iddle Last than on rea aternati"es to the orientaist depiction of te region. Cnfortunately tissecond bid for a culturalistic a%%roac to te study of international relations is not only aligned wit a number of !erywelcome critical 'ualities tat may enric te study of international relations. It is also related to a %roblematic tendency to

o"erreac t wen it comes to addressing te %re!alent lindness to te Self witin I* mainstream and among subscribers tote essentialist conce%tion of culture. us as%irations of %romoting a larger self consciousness in te study of internationalrelation end up &ecoming sef3centeredness ,ust as te attem%t to %romote a larger sensiti!ity toward te @ter in reality

becomes o!ersensiti!ity to saying anything su&stantia wen it comes to actual @ter. is is %roblematic %artly becausewe are eft without any rea idea as to ow to a%%roac actua 8iddle Lastern internationa reations rather tan6estern re%resentations of tese= and %artly because tere is te ris0 of losing sigt of the materia and "ery concrete

conse6uences tat s%ecific re%resentations may engender AKrisna 1((3B. -lso te %ro%onents of tis secondUculturalisticU alternati!e seem to be better at as0ing im%ortant and critical 'uestions tan at offering attracti!e answers.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

24



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

2F K prior

*heir roe of the &aot caims construct an omnipotent theoristthis construct is more dangerous than

the pro"isiona and imited caims of security.@le /, Senior *esearc ?ellow 9 o%enagen #eace *esearc Inst. $2K in International Relations Theory and the Politics of

European Integration eds. Kelstru% and 6illiams %. 22>23is ca%ter as largely ta0en its 'uestions train te traditional agenda and its answers from a muc less traditional'uarters. e establisment is li0ely to a!e some %roblems acce%ting te logic a1 te re%ly Ae!en if it migt li0e were itendsB > and te %ost>structuralist will esitate before granting teterms for te 'uestion te %rasing of te %roblemati'ue.6o says weneed security systemsN Isnt tis to acce%t te anarcy %roblemati'ueN Does it %resu%%ose a need forarrangements to curtail sonw 0ind of natural or inerent !iolence and anarcyN Tes and no. Tes world %olitics is indeedcom%le< unstable > and could easily be called anarcic. 8any un%leasant %ossibilities can be imagined and some aresufficiently li0ely to ,ustify a term li0e %essimism. Still tis is e<actly not te anarcy %roblemati'ue in its traditional I*sense because as *icard -sley as %ointed out te anarcy %roblemati'ue of coo%eration under anarcy and oterrational coice temes assumes to be sol!ed te burner %art of te %roblem it %ur%orts to state A1( 22(B. e lac0 ofcentral rule can easily be admitted but te dominant I* agenda is %roduced by mo!ing immediately from tis > te realanarcy > to a s%ecific articulation of te 'uestion in te form of so!ereign states rationally calculating teir mutualrelations. *esisting te eroic %ractice of te so!ereignty$anarcy blac0mail we do not get an ordered %eaceful worldorder > 'uite te contrary we are left wit tat e<cessi!e amount of o%enness and indecision wic is mostly eld to be

intolerableand terefore absorbed into te anarcy %roblemati'ue. e absence of acentral agency of rule would mean onlytat an absence of a centralagency of rule ,ibed.. 23(1. 7i0e classical realism tis anarcy witout te anarcy

%roblemati'ue %oints to a world of little stability few guarantees and muc !iolence of many sans. 8ainstreamcanstructi!ists only a!oid tis confusing world by de facto riding on muc of te disci%lining and %romises of teanarcy%roblemati'ue state>centredness Aallegedly only as an academic assum%tionB domestic order and an agenda ofinter>state co>o%eration. If te e<isting order is > as te classical realist secretly sus%ect -s0y 1((( 1(("Band te %ost>structuralists claim > built on ultimately arbitrary instalmentsof self>e!idence meaning and %roblems one sould be

%re%ared forcange to mean nor necessarily gentle im%ro!ement but %ossibly Aor most li0elyB 'uite dramatic canges wicno>one can guarantee will be for tebetter. is -sleyan image of realists as almost 0nowingly figting an abyssofindeterminancy creating limitations but not out of rigidity or narrow>mindedness but in order to create order contrastsstrongly wit tedominant self>image of most critical international relationists Amost constructi!ists and some %ost>structuralistsB. ey usually %icture te %roblemof realism and rationalism as one of su%erstition or religion of te main>stream dogmatically olding on to %ositi!ist limitations. is naturallyendows te critical teorist wit a muc nicer

%osition te one of critici/ing transgressing and tin0ing te new. #arado<ically tis is te arc>modernist %osition tenightenment rhetoric in pure form. In contrast wecould admit tat realists and oter rationalists are actuallyLnligtenment>ins%ired tin0ers > often %rogressi!es > wo want to im%ro!e and transgressbut of course a!e

%roblemati/ed in te dual sense of 'uestioning and ofim%osing a certain set of limitations by defining te rele!ant %roblem.6en realists and oters resist te o%enings and modifications suggestedby critical teorists it is often not

because of %ure epistemoogica conser"ati"ism but on te contrary a %olitical %ractice based on teir sense tat teirorder is arbitrary and terefore in need of %rotection tat e.g. te cannelling of !iolence into a state>based order as been anenormous historicagain tat is too ligtly gi!en u% if te im%lied ontological and e%istemological decisions are re!ersed6al0er 1((3= 6illiams 1((BN en tedecision to go aead to 'uestion and tereby re>o%en te istoricalresolution ofdifficult %olitical %roblems is not ta0en ligtly wit a sense of%rogressing towards a new Aliberal>constructi!istB dawn butrater wit adiffident sense of ma0ing a difficult %olitical coice wit un0nownconse'uences

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

25



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

*ransition fais

ioence resuts from changes to the system inspired &y criticism

-lastair <urray #olitics De%artment Cni!ersity of 6ales Swansea *econstructing *ealism 17 %. 11>12is igligts te central difficulty wit 6endts constructi!ism. It is not any form of unfounded idealism about te

%ossibility of effecting a cange in international %olitics. 6endt acce%ts tat te intersub,ecti!e caracter of internationalinstitutions suc as self>el% render tem relati!ely ard social facts. *ater wat is %roblematic is is fait tat succange if it could be acie!ed im%lies %rogress. 6endts entire a%%roac is go!erned by te belief tat te %roblematicelements of international %olitics can be transcended tat te com%etiti!e identities wic create tese elements can bereconditioned and tat te %redatory %olicies wic underlie tese identities can be eliminated. L!eryting in is accountis u% for grabs tere is no core of recalcitrance to uman conduct wic cannot be reformed unlearnt dis%osed of. isgenerates a stance tat so %ri!ileges te %ossibility of a systemic transformation tat it sim%ly %uts aside te difficultieswic it recognises to be inerent in its acie!ement. us e!en toug 6endt ac0nowledges tat te intersub,ecti!e basisof te self>el% system ma0es its reform difficult tis does not dissuade im. He sim%ly demands tat states ado%t astrategy of Zaltercasting a strategy wic Ztries to induce alter to ta0e on a new identity Aand tereby enlist alter in egoseffort to cange itselfB by treating alter as if it already ad tat identity. 6endts %osition effecti!ely culminates in ademand tat te state underta0e noting less tan a giant lea% of fait. e fact tat its o%%onent migt not ta0e its o!erturesseriously migt not be interested in reformulating its own construction of te world or migt sim%ly see suc an o%eningas a wea0ness to be e<%loited are com%letely discounted. e %ros%ect of acie!ing a systemic transformation sim%ly

outweigs any ad!erse conse'uences wic migt arise from te effort to acie!e it. 6endt ultimately a%%ears in te finalanalysis to a!e o!erdosed on ZGorbimania.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

2



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

,eaism ine"ita&e – u))ini

,eaism must &e used strategicay. ,e+ecting it ma%es it more dangerous

Stefano u))ini -ssistant #rofessor at entral Luro%ean Cni!. *ealism in International *elations and International #olitical

Lconomy 18 %. 212erefore in a tird ste% tis ca%ter also claims tat it is impossi&e ,ust to heap reaism onto the dust&in of istory and

start anew. is is a non>o%tion. -ltoug realism as a strictly causal teory as been a disa%%ointment !arious realistassum%tions are well ali!e in te minds of many %ractitioners and obser!ers of international affairs. -ltoug it does notcorres%ond to a teory wic el%s us to understand a real world wit ob,ecti!e laws it is a world>!iew wic suggeststougts about it and wic %ermeates our daily language for ma0ing sense of it. *ealism as been a ric albeit !erycontestable reser!oir of lessons of te %ast of meta%ors and istorical analogies wic in te ands of its most giftedre%resentati!es a!e been %ro%osed at times im%osed and re%roduced as guides to a common understanding of internationalaffairs. *ealism is ali!e in te collecti!e memory and self>understanding of our Ai.e. 6esternB foreign %olicy elite and %ublicweter educated or not. Hence we cannot but deal wit it. ?or tis reason forgetting realism is also 'uestionable. @f courseacademic obser!ers sould not bow to te wims of daily %olitics. ut staying at distance or being critical does not mean tattey sould ose the capacity to understand the anguages of those who ma%e significant decisions not only ingo!ernment but also in firms G@s and oter institutions. o te contrary tis understanding as increasingly !aried as itmay be is a %rere'uisite for teir !ery %rofession. 8ore %articularly it is a prere6uisite for opposing te more irresponsi&e

caims made in te name altoug not always necessarily in te s%irit of realism.

,eaism must &e used strategicay &ecause rea3word actors rey on it


Lconomy 18 %. 235ird tis last ca%ter as argued tat altoug te e!olution of realism as been mainly a disa%%ointment as a general causalteory we a!e to deal wit it. @n te one and realist assum%tions and insigts are used and merged in nearly all framewor0sof analysis offered in International *elations or International #olitical Lconomy. @ne of te boo0s %ur%oses was to sowrealism as a !aried and !ariably ric teory so eterogeneous tat it would be better to refer to it only in %lural terms. @n teoter and to dis%ose of realism because some of its !ersions a!e been %ro!en em%irically wrong aistorical or logicallyincoerent does not necessarily touc its role in te sared understandings of obser!ers and %ractitioners of internationalaffairs. *ealist teories a!e a %ersisting %ower for constructing our understanding of te %resent. eir assum%tions bot asteoretical constructs and as %articular lessons of te %ast translated from one generation of decision>ma0ers to anoter el%mobili/ing certain understandings and dis%ositions to action. ey also %ro!ide tem wit legitimacy. Des%ite realisms se!eraldeats as a general causal teory it can still %owerfully enframe action. It e<ists in te minds and is ence reflected in teactions of many %ractitioners. /hether or not the word reaism depicts is out there! reaism is. *ealism is not a causalteory tat e<%lains International *elations but as long as realism continues to be a %owerful mind>set we need to understandrealism to ma0e sense of International *elations. In oter words realism is a still necessary hermeneutica &ridge to teunderstanding of world %olitics. Getting rid of realism witout a!ing a dee% understanding of it not only ris0s unwarranteddismissal of some !aluable teoretical insigts tat I a!e tried to gater in tis boo0= it would also be futile. Indeed it migt

be the &est way to tacitly and uncriticay reproduce it.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

27



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

,eaism good – transition war

G/ishing doesn't ma%e it so. ioence resuts from changes to the system inspired &y criticism

-lastair <urray #olitics De%artment Cni!ersity of 6ales Swansea *econstructing *ealism 17 %. 11>12is igligts te central difficulty wit 6endts constructi!ism. It is not any form of unfounded idealism about te

%ossibility of effecting a cange in international %olitics. 6endt acce%ts tat te intersub,ecti!e caracter of internationalinstitutions suc as self>el% render tem relati!ely ard social facts. *ater wat is %roblematic is is fait tat succange if it could be acie!ed im%lies %rogress. 6endts entire a%%roac is go!erned by te belief tat te %roblematicelements of international %olitics can be transcended tat te com%etiti!e identities wic create tese elements can bereconditioned and tat te %redatory %olicies wic underlie tese identities can be eliminated. L!eryting in is accountis u% for grabs tere is no core of recalcitrance to uman conduct wic cannot be reformed unlearnt dis%osed of. isgenerates a stance tat so %ri!ileges te %ossibility of a systemic transformation tat it sim%ly %uts aside te difficultieswic it recognises to be inerent in its acie!ement. us e!en toug 6endt ac0nowledges tat te intersub,ecti!e basisof te self>el% system ma0es its reform difficult tis does not dissuade im. He sim%ly demands tat states ado%t astrategy of Zaltercasting a strategy wic Ztries to induce alter to ta0e on a new identity Aand tereby enlist alter in egoseffort to cange itselfB by treating alter as if it already ad tat identity. 6endts %osition effecti!ely culminates in ademand tat te state underta0e noting less tan a giant lea% of fait. e fact tat its o%%onent migt not ta0e its o!erturesseriously migt not be interested in reformulating its own construction of te world or migt sim%ly see suc an o%eningas a wea0ness to be e<%loited are com%letely discounted. e %ros%ect of acie!ing a systemic transformation sim%ly

outweigs any ad!erse conse'uences wic migt arise from te effort to acie!e it. 6endt ultimately a%%ears in te finalanalysis to a!e o!erdosed on ZGorbimania.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

28



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

,eaism good – poitica "acuum

Briticism without an aternati"e theory ensures "ioence. ,eaism %eeps the &aance of power sta&e.

-lastair <urray #olitics De%artment Cni!ersity of 6ales Swansea *econstructing *ealism 17 %. 1>1(-sleys criti'ue tus boils down to a ,udgement as to te %otentialities for cange in te current situation and ow best toe<%loit tem. It amounts to te difference between a %rogressi!e %iloso%y wic regards systemic transformation asimminent and one wic remains more sce%tical. In Z#olitical realism and uman interests for instance realisms %racticalstrategy ultimately a%%ears illegitimate to -sley only because is own agenda is emanci%atory in nature. His disagreementwit realism de%ends on a igly contestable claim > based on Her/s argument tat wit te de!elo%ment of global treatste conditions wic migt %roduce some uni!ersal consensus a!e arisen > tat its Zim%ossibility teorem is em%irically

%roblematic tat a uni!ersal consensus is acie!able and tat its %ractical strategy is obstructing its realisation. In mucte same way in Me %o!erty of neorealism+ realisms %ractical strategy is illegitimate only because -sleys agenda isinclusionary. His central disagreement wit realism arises out of is belief tat its strategy re%roduces a world orderorganised around so!ereign states %re!enting e<%loration of te indeterminate number of > %otentially less e<clusionary >alternati!e world orders. *ealists owe!er would be unli0ely to be troubled by suc carges. -sley needs to do ratermore tan merely assert tat te de!elo%ment of global treats will %roduce some uni!ersal consensus or tat any numberof less e<clusionary world orders are %ossible to con!ince tem. - uni!ersal treat does not im%ly a uni!ersal consensusmerely te e<istence of a uni!ersal treat faced by %articularistic actors. -nd te assertion tat indeterminate numbers of

%otentially less e<clusionary orders e<ist carries little weigt unless we can s%ecify e<actly wat tese alternati!es are and

,ust ow tey migt be acie!ed. -s suc realists would seem to be ,ustified in regarding suc %otentialities as currentlyunrealisable ideals and in see0ing a more %ro<imate good in te fostering of mutual understanding and in %articular of astable balance of %ower. Des%ite te ad!erse side>effects tat suc a balance of %ower im%lies it at least offers ussometing tangible rater tan e%emeral %romises lac0ing a sred of su%%ort. Cltimately -sleys demand tat a newcritical a%%roac be ado%ted in order to free us from te gri% of suc false conce%tions de%ends u%on ideas about te

%ros%ects for te de!elo%ment of a uni!ersal consensus wic are little more tan wisful tin0ing and ideas about tee<istence of %otentially less e<clusionary orders wic are little more tan mere assertion. Hence is attem%ts in #oliticalrealism and uman interests to conceal tese ideas from !iew by claiming tat te tecnical base of realism ser!es only toidentify and yet not to reform te %ractical and ten in e %o!erty of neorealism by remo!ing te tecnical fromin!estigation altogeter by an e<clusi!e reliance on a %roblem of ermeneutic circularity. In te final analysis ten-sleys %ost > structuralist a%%roac boils down to little more tan a criti'ue >>and at tat a criti'ue wic fails. It is

%redicated on te assum%tion tat te constraints u%on us are sim%ly restricti!e 0nowledge %ractices suc tat it %resumestat te entirety of te solution to our %roblems is little more tan te remo!al of suc false ways of tin0ing. It offers

noting by way of alternati!e > no strategies no %ro<imate goals indeed little by way of goals at all. If in constructi!ismte %rogressi!e %ur%ose leads to strategies di!orced from an awareness of te %roblems confronting transformatory effortsand in critical teoretical %ers%ecti!es it %roduces strategies di!orced from international %olitics in teir entirety in

%ost>structuralism it generates a com%lete absence of strategies altogeter. riti'ue ser!es to fill te !oid yet tis criti'ueultimately %ro!es unsustainable. 6it its defeat %ost>structuralism is left wit noting. @nce one %eels away te layers ofmisconstruction it sim%ly fades away. If realism is as -sley %uts it a tradition fore!er immersed in te e<%ectation of

%olitical tragedy it at least offers us a concrete !ision of ob,ecti!es and ways in wic to acie!e tem wic is own %osition fore!er immersed in te e<%ectation of deli!erance is manifestly unable to %ro!ide.U

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

2



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

,eaism good – criti6ue petrifies oppression

:ny reaism can address "ioence. Britica approaches ma%e the &est the enemy of the good

-lastair <urray #olitics De%artment Cni!ersity of 6ales Swansea *econstructing *ealism 17 %. 15>1"7in0later seems to go some way towards ac0nowledging tis in %eyond Realis! and aris! recognising 8orgentauscommitment in contrast to neorealism to widening community beyond te nation>state. 6at e now suggests owe!er istat Z:w;at realism offers is an account of istorical circumstances wic uman sub,ects a!e yet to bring under teircollecti!e control. 6at it does not %ossess is an account of te modes of %olitical inter!ention wic would enable uman

beings to ta0e control of teir international istory.U e issue becomes less a matter of wat realism does tan wat itdoes not do less te way it constructs te %roblem tan its failure to sol!e it. Tet 7in0later concedes tat Zit is not at allclear tat any strand of social and %olitical tougt %ro!ides a com%elling account of Ustrategies of transitionU. Indeedwere e as attem%ted to engage wit tis issue imself e as %ro!ed manifestly unable to %ro!ide suc an account.-ltoug e as %ut forward some ideas of wat is needed > a fundamental reorganisation of %olitical relations establisinga global legal order to re%lace te so!ereign state and a fundamental rearrangement of economic relations establising anorder in wic all indi!iduals a!e te means as well as te formal rigts of freedom > is only suggestion as to ow sucob,ecti!es sould be acie!ed seems to be tat Z:s;ocial de!elo%ment entails indi!iduals %lacing temsel!es at odds witteir societies as tey begin to 'uestion con!entional means of caracterising outsiders and to criticise customary

%roibitions u%on indi!idual relations wit tem. His critical teoretical Ztransitional strategies amount to little more tante suggestion tat indi!iduals must demand recognition for temsel!es as men as well as citi/ens must demand te rigt

to enter into com%le< interstate relations temsel!es and must act in tese relations as beings wit fundamental obligationsto all oter members of te s%ecies.U 8ore recently e as %ro%osed a !ision in wic Zsubnational and transnationalciti/ensi% are strengtened and in wic mediating between te different loyalties and identities %resent witin modemsocieties is one central %ur%ose of te %ost>6est%alian state. Suc an ob,ecti!e is to be reaced by a discourse etics alongte lines of tat %ro%osed by Habermas. Tet suc an etics amounts to little more tan te suggestion Ztat uman beingsneed to be reflecti!e about te ways in wic tey include and e<clude oters from dialogue scarcely going beyond7in0laters earlier em%asis on indi!iduals acting as men as well as citi/ens. *ealism does at least %ro%ose tangibleob,ecti!es wic wilst %era%s lac0ing te !isionary a%%eal of 7in0laters %ro%osals ultimately offer us a %at to followand it does at least suggest a strategy of realisation em%asising te necessity of a restrained moderate di%lomacy wicif less daring tan 7in0later migt wis %ro!ides us wit some guidance. It is tis inability to articulate %ractical strategieswic suggests te central difficulty wit suc critical teoretical a%%roaces. e %rogressi!e urge mo!es a stage furterere leading tem to abandon almost entirely te %roblem of establising some form of stable international order at tisle!el in fa!our of a continuing re!olution in searc of a genuine cosmo%olis. It generates suc an em%asis on te %ursuit of

distant ultimate ob,ecti!es tat tey %ro!e inca%able of furnising us wit anyting but te most !ague and elusi!e ofstrategies suc an em%asis on mo!ing towards a %ost>6est%alian boundary > less world tat tey are inca%able of tellingus anyting about te %roblems facing us today. If for teorists suc as 7in0later suc a difficulty does not constitute afailure for critical teory witin its own terms of reference tis %osition cannot be acce%ted uncritically. 6itout an abilityto address contem%orary %roblems it is unable to %ro!ide strategies to o!ercome e!en te immediate obstacles in te wayof its ob,ecti!e of a genuinely cosmo%olitan society. -nd witout a guarantee tat suc a cosmo%olitan society is e!enfeasible suc a critical teoretical %ers%ecti!e sim%ly offers us te %er%etual redefinition of old %roblems in a new conte<tand te %ersistent creation of new %roblems to re%lace old ones witout e!en te lu<ury of attem%ting to address tem.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

-0



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

*hreats are rea

*hreats aren't ar&itrary. Ban't throw out security or wish away threatening postureswe ha"e to

de"eop strategies for coping with threat perceptions.

@la!. ?. Knudsen #rof 9 SWdertWrn Cni! ollege $1 :Security Dialogue 32.3 E#ost>o%enagen Security Studies Desecuriti/ingSecuriti/ationF %. 3");

In te %ost>old 6ar %eriod agenda>setting as been muc easier to influence tan te securiti/ation a%%roac assumes.at cange cannot be credited to te conce%t= te cange in security %olitics was already ta0ing %lace in defenseministries and %arlia> ments before te conce%t was first launced. Indeed securiti/ation in my !iew is more a%%ro%riateto te security %olitics of te old 6ar years tan to te %ost>old 6ar %eriod. 8oreo!er I a!e a %roblem wit teunderlying im%lication tat it is unim> %ortant weter states Mreally+ face dangers from oter states or grou%s. In teo%enagen scool treats are seen as coming mainly from te actors+ own fears or from wat a%%ens wen te fears ofindi!iduals turn into %aranoid %olitical action. In my !iew tis em%asis on te sub,ecti!e is a misleading conce%tion oftreat in tat it discounts an inde%endent e<istence for wat> e!er is %ercei!ed as a treat . Granted %olitical life is oftenmar0ed by mis%er> ce%tions mista0es %ure imaginations gosts or mirages but suc %enom> ena do not occursimultaneously to large numbers of %oliticians and ardly most of te time. During te old 6ar treats – in te sense of

%lausible %ossibilities of danger – referred to Mreal+ %enomena and tey refer to Mreal+ %enomena now. e ob,ectsreferred to are often not te same but tat is a different matter. reats a!e to be dealt wit bot in terms of %erce%tionsand in terms of te %enomena wic are %ercei!ed to be treatening . e %oint of 6O!er+s conce%t of security is not te

%otential e<istence of danger somewere but te use of te word itself by %olitical elites. In is 1((& #D dissertation ewrites M@ne can !iew EsecurityF as tat wic is in language teory called a s%eec act it is not interesting as a signreferring to someting more real – it is te utterance itself tat is te act.+ e deliberate disregard of ob,ecti!e factors ise!en more e<%licitly stated in u/an ] 6O!er+s ,oint article of te same year. -s a conse'uence te %enomenon oftreat is reduced to a matter of %ure domestic %olitics. It seems to me tat te security dilemma as a central notion insecurity studies ten loses its founda> tion. Tet I see tat 6O!er imself as no com%unction about referring to tesecurity dilemma in a recent article. is discounting of te ob,ecti!e as%ect of treats sifts security studies toinsignificant concerns. 6at as long made Mtreats+ and Mtreat %erce%tions+ im%ortant %enomena in te study of I* is teim%lication tat urgent action may be re'uired. Crgency of course is were 6O!er first began is argu> ment in fa!or ofan alternati!e security conce%tion because a con!incing sense of urgency as been te cief cul%rit beind te abuse ofMsecurity+ and te conse'uent M%olitics of %anic+ as 6O!er a%tly calls it. ow ere – in te case of urgency – anoter

baby is trown out wit te 6O!erian batwater . 6en real situations of urgency arise tose situations are callenges todemocracy= tey are actually at te core of te %roblematic arising wit te %rocess of ma0ing security %olicy in

%arliamentary democracy. ut in 6O!er+s world treats are merely more or less %ersuasi!e and te claim of urgency is ,ust an> oter argument. I old tat instead of Mabolising+ treatening %enomena Mout tere + by reconce%tuali/ing temas 6O!er does we sould continue %aying attention to tem because situations wit a credible claim to urgency will 0ee%coming bac0 and ten we need to 0now more about ow tey wor0 in te interrelations of grou%s and states Asuc as ci!ilwars for instanceB not least to find ade6uate democratic procedures for dealing wit tem.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

-1



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

*hreats are rea

:ur impacts are true! there wi &e war! and space is where it wi happenray 4 Aris Hables Gray is an -ssociate #rofessor of te ultural Studies of Science and ecnology and of om%uter Science atte Cni!ersity of Great ?alls in Great ?alls 8ontana. He studies cyborology Acybernetic organismsB and s%o0e wit 6olfgang S^t/labout cyborgs and teir im%lications. Uere 6ill e 6ar_U ?uture 6ar ?antasies and 8ilitaristic Science ?iction in te 1()s

Science ?iction Studies Vol. 21 o. 3 Ao!. 1((4B %%. 315>33" ,storB

6ar itself as entered a crisis because tecnoscience as made war so orrific tat it is a treat to uman sur!i!al itself and tereforeis %rofoundly nonsensical.4 In res%onse to tis danger a significant grou% of sf autors a!e been writing from *obert Heinleinsim%licit %remise tat scientific %rogress will not end war altoug it may dis%lace it in time or s%ace. 6ar in teir !iew remainsnatura>a necessary %art of being uman and of being intelligent and in fact of life." ut it is fougt out in oter times oterdimensions or most commonly on the <oon! on <ars! in the asteroid &et or &eyond the Soar System. Still te fundamenta

gi"en is tat no matter ow distant te future Uere 6ill be 6ar_U& So far sf as %ro!en to be pretty good futurology or is it a caseof self>fulfilling %ro%esiesN

*he word functions according to reaist principes. oting will %ersuade states to abandon %ower %oliticson <earsheimer e ragedy of Great #ower #olitics 2001 tt%$$www.wwnorton.com$catalog$fall)1$))2)25e<cer%t.tmaccessed 11$14$)2

e o%timists claim tat security com%etition and war among te great %owers as been burned out of te system is wrong. Infact all of te ma,or states around te globe still care dee%ly about te balance of %ower and are destined to com%ete for %oweramong temsel!es for te foreseeable future. onse'uently realism will offer te most %owerful e<%lanations of international

%olitics o!er te ne<t century and tis will be true e!en if te debates among academic and %olicy elites are dominated by non>realist teories. In sort te real world remains a realist world. States still fear eac oter and see0 to gain %ower at eac oterse<%ense because international anarcyJte dri!ing force beind great>%ower bea!iorJdid not cange wit te end of teold 6ar and tere are few signs tat suc cange is li0ely any time soon. States remain te %rinci%al actors in world %oliticsand tere is still no nigt watcman standing abo!e tem. ?or sure te colla%se of te So!iet Cnion caused a ma,or sift in teglobal distribution of %ower. ut it did not gi!e rise to a cange in te anarcic structure of te system and witout tat 0ind of

%rofound cange tere is no reason to e<%ect te great %owers to bea!e muc differently in te new century tan tey did in %re!ious centuries. Indeed considerable e!idence from te 1(()s indicates tat %ower %olitics as not disa%%eared fromLuro%e and orteast -sia te regions in wic tere are two or more great %owers as well as %ossible great %owers suc asGermany and a%an. ere is no 'uestion owe!er tat te com%etition for %ower o!er te %ast decade as been low>0ey. Still

tere is %otential for intense security com%etition among te great %owers tat migt lead to a ma,or war. #robably te beste!idence of tat %ossibility is te fact tat te Cnited States maintains about one undred tousand troo%s eac in Luro%e andin orteast -sia for te e<%licit %ur%ose of 0ee%ing te ma,or states in eac region at %eace.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

-2



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

*hreats are rea

Goitics must incorporate the e(istence of endemic "ioence. /e can incorporate this without &uying into

e"ery ,eaist premise

Stefano u))ini -ssistant #rofessor at entral Luro%ean Cni!ersity Ee enduring dilemmas of realism in International *elationsF

o%enagen #eace *esearc Institute December 2001 tt%$$www.ciaonet.org$w%s$gus)2$gus)2.%df accessed $13$)2Cntil now te %ur%ose of tis article migt a!e a%%eared to be ,ust anoter %era%s more systematically groundedcriti'ue of te difficulties realist teories of International *elations a!e been facing. y drawing on te lessons one canlearn from tese dilemmas tis conclusion wants to suggest a way forward. @nce we 0now were realism gets stuc0 in itsanalytical ,ustification te study of its dilemmas sould o%en a more refle<i!e way to re>a%%reend *ealism as a doublenegation and te tra% of te realism>idealism debate In wat follows I argue tat te underlying reason wy realists are notfacing u% te im%lications of te identity Adistincti!eness$determinacyB and te conser!ati!e Ascience$traditionB dilemmaconsists in te terms of te first debate in wic many realists feel com%elled to ,ustify realism. -ccording to tis self>understanding realists are tere to remind us about te fearful te cruel side of world %olitics wic lur0s beind. isdistinct face of international %olitics ine!itably sows wen te mas'uerade is o!er. In te Venetian carni!al of internationaldi%lomacy only te e<%erienced will be %re%ared wen te curtain falls and world istory %ic0s u% its circular course. ytrying to occu%y a !antage %oint of Asu%eriorB istorical e<%erience science came ten as an offer I* realism could notrefuse. I* *ealism as re%eatedly tougt to a!e no oter coice but to ,ustify tis %essimism wit a need to distance itself from oter %ositions to be nonsubsumable. It needed to sow tat wate!er else migt tem%orarily be true tere is anunflincing reality wic cannot be a!oided. *ealism needed to %oint to a reality wic cannot be e!entually o!ercome by

%olitics to an attitude wic would similarly rebuff te embrace by any oter intellectual tradition. e Efirst debateF isusually %resented as te %lace in wic tis Enegati!eF attitude as been %layed out indeed mytically ensrined. It is totis meta%orical foundation to wic many self>identified realists return. Tet I tin0 tat te Efirst debateF is a %lacewere te tougts not only of so>called idealist scolars but also of self>stylised realists loo0 unduly im%o!erised e<actly

because it is couced in terms of an o%%osition. 6en scolars more carefully study te ty%e of o%%osition owe!er tey'uic0ly find out tat many so>called realist scolars a!e been not only critical of uto%ian tougt and social engineering

but also of *eal%oliti0. In oter words if one concentrates on scolars and teir wor0 and not on labels one sees realismnot sim%ly as an attitude of negation – wic it is – but as an attitude of double negation in te words of *.. er0irealism must o%%ose bot te conser!ati!e idealism of nostalgia and te re!olutionist idealism of imagination. orbertoobbio as de!elo%ed tis double negation in is usually lucid style as bot a conser!ati!e realism wic o%%oses teEidealF and a critical realism wic o%%oses te Ea%%arentF a difference too few realists a!e been able to disentangle. ?ortis double eritage of %olitical realism is full of tensions. *ealism as anti>idealism is status>'uo oriented. It relies on te

entire %ano%ly of arguments so beautifully summarised by -lfred Hirscman. -ccording to te futility tesis any attem%t atcange is condemned to be witout any real effect. e per'ersity tesis would argue tat far from canging for te bettersuc %olicies only add new %roblems to te already e<isting ones. -nd te central (eopardy tesis says tat %ur%osefulattem%ts at social cange will only undermine te already acie!ed. e best is te enemy of te good and so on. -nti>a%%arent realism owe!er is an attitude more a0in to te %olitical teories of sus%icion. It loo0s at wat is idden beindte smo0escreen of current ideologies %utting te allegedly self>e!ident into te limeligt of criticism. 6it te oter formof realism it sares a reluctance to treat beautiful ideas as wat tey claim to be. ut it is muc more sensible to teirideological use re!olutionary as well as conser!ati!e. 6ereas anti>ideal realism defends te status 'uo anti>a%%arentrealism 'uestions it. It wants to unmas0 e<isting %ower relations.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

--



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

,eaism ine"ita&e – actors assume it

/e must use reaism &ecause others rey on it


Lconomy 18 %. 22&e main line of criti'ue can be summari/ed as follows realism does not ta0e its central conce%ts seriously enoug. ostart wit its criti'ues claim tat realism is a sce%tical %ractice wic owe!er sto%s sort of %roblemati/ing te inerentteory of te state. It is second a %ractice wic informs an international community. ird international %olitics is not

%ower %olitics because it resembles realist %rece%ts but because te international community wic olds a realistworld > !iew acts in suc a way as to %roduce %ower %olitics it is a social construction. *ealist e<%ectations migt old not

because tey ob,ecti!ely corres%ond to someting out tere but because agents ma0e tem te ma<ims tat guide teiractions. ?inally tis can a!e !ery significant %olicy effects e!en at te end of te old 6ar wic migt a!e satteredrealist world>!iews realist %ractices could mobili/e old codes suc as to belittle te %otential istorical brea0 of te

%ost>erlin wall system. *ealism still underlies ma,or re > conce%tuali/ation of te %resent international system fromHuntingtons geocultural reification to Zneomedie!alism > and ,ustifies te foreign %olicies wic can be deri!ed fromtem.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

-4



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

Inteectua hi+ac%ing

G*heir focus on su&"erting reaism hi+ac%s the potentia for a producti"e de&ate

D.S.7. Car"is 7ecturer in I* at te Cni!ersity of Sydney International *elations and te allenges of #ostmodernism 2000 %. <i><ii

e growing %o%ularlity of %ostmodern %ers%ecti!es in te disci%le te ready acce%tance by many of te need to engage indeconstructi!e %ractices te allegations of moral im%ro%rieties and te im%utation of disci%linary cul%ability in numerousorrors waged in te name of modernity and science ree0s of a %olitical witc unt not before seen in te disci%line. eorywile always a %owerful tool tat can be used in te ser!ice of s%ecific rationalities seems increasingly to be a %oliticalinstrument i,ac0ed for its destructi!e %otential and wielded in accusatory and treatening fasion. is boo0 is tus a defenseof te edifice of teory as Eone of te crowning acie!ements of te %ast se!eral centuriesF of EPteory as an ideaF as

icolas @nuf %uts it of Eteory as an enter%rise teory as an economic statement of wat we tin0 we 0now about te worldand oursel!esF and of Eteory as te grounds for ,udgement.F Doubtless tis study will %ro!e un%o%ular wit %ostmodernists.It neiter com%liments teir wor0 nor finds many sa!ing graces tat migt recommend it to oters. -t te same time tougtis is a wor0 ins%ired by %ostmodernismJalbeit as a reaction against it. 8ore accurately it is a reaction against a %articularmotif e!ident in te ma,ority of so>called %ost>modernist discourse o%erati!e in International *elations today. is sould not

be confused owe!er wit any derision toward te e<ercise of te ird Debate itself. Intellectual self>e<aminations are anecessary %art of any disci%linary$intellectual endea!or and sould be done %eriodically altoug %era%s not %er%etually.*ater my concern is wit a %articular !ariety of %ostmodernism tat in International *elations as come to dominate

dissident scolarsi% to te e<clusion of oter %ostmodem %ers%ecti!es. -s a%ters 4 5 and " will more fully elucidate Itarget wat I call sub!ersi!e %ostmodernism e<em%lified in te writings of *icard -sley and *obert 6al0er and morerecently in radical feminist %ostmodern writings for ta0ing te disci%line down an ideologically destructi!e road. 6ere teird Debate migt a!e %ro!ed a %roducti!e and igly !aluable e<ercise in teoretical e!aluation and intellectual renewal itsintellectual i,ac0ing by sub!ersi!e %ostmodernists as caused its de!olution into a meaningless and di!isi!e e<ercise bent ondestruction. Voices oterwise in!ol!ed in te %rocess of intellectual renewal and critical self>e<amination A6endt @nuf 7a%idierste0er S%egele o< to name but a fewB a!e tus tended to be drowned out by te babel of cantan0erous %ers%ecti!es tatallege numerous im%ro%rieties and disci%linary !iolence.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

-5



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

2F ,eaism constructs threats

,eaism doesn't re6uire worst case forecasting or threat construction.L *he criti6ue sacrifices sta&iity

on the ater of uncertain transformation.

-lastair <urray #olitics De%artment Cni!ersity of 6ales Swansea *econstructing *ealism 17 %. 12is is not merely to indulge in yet anoter interminable discourse on te Zlessons of 8unic re,ecting all strategies ofassurance for more familiar %olicies of deterrence. - realist %ers%ecti!e does not as 6endt seems to assume re'uireworst > case forecasting nor does it ado%t an etic of Zsau!e 'ui %eut. ut it is to suggest tat wen realism em%asises teneed for a cautious gradual a%%roac to attem%ts to transform te nature of te system it as a %oint. In 6endts analysiscange ultimately becomes as %ri!ileged as te status 'uo in rationalist %ers%ecti!es. If e does not old tat istory is

%rogressi!e e does old tat cange is. If e is not idealistic about te %ossibilities of effecting a transformation of tesystem e is wit regard to te way in wic it migt be accom%lised. Tet e!en if we ac0nowledge tat a transformationin te structure of international %olitics would be beneficial tis does not im%ly te acce%tance of a des%erate gamble toaccom%lis it. -nd at te end of te day if we can acce%t tat te current structure of international %olitics contains manyin,ustices tere is no guarantee tat its transformation would remo!e suc ini'uities anyway. e only ting tat te 'uestto o!ertrow te status 'uo does guarantee to do is to undermine tose fragments of order tat we currently %ossess.Cltimately constructi!ism can be seen to rest u%on a !alue ,udgment wic sacrifices te safe o%tion of remaining witinte current situation for te attem%t to e<%lore its %ossibilities. It can be seen to rest on a %rogressi!e %iloso%y wic

%ri!ileges te %ossible o!er te e<tant and sacrifices stability on te altar of transformation. is is not to attem%t to le!el a

carge of uto%ianism as 6endt com%lains tat 8earseimer does by em%asising constructi!isms normati!e rater tane<%lanatory commitment. -s 6endt res%onds Zonstructi!ists a!e a normati!e interest in %romoting social cange buttey %ursue tis by trying to e<%lain ow seemingly natural social structures li0e self>el% or te old 6ar are effects of

%ractice ... If critical teorists fail tis will be because tey do not e<%lain ow te world wor0s not because of teir!alues.U -ll teories ultimately a!e normati!e commitments= te fact of teir e<istence does not allow us to 'uestion te!alidity of constructi!isms e<%lanatory %ower. 6at does owe!er is te im%act of tese normati!e assum%tions on itsaccount of international %olitics. ust as reflecti!ists argue tat te im%licit conser!atism of neorealism generates itsaistoricism te im%licit %rogressi!ism of constructi!ism generates its unwillingness to ac0nowledge e!en te %ossibilityof elements of %ermanency. -nd ,ust as reflecti!ists argue tat te im%licit conser!atism of neorealism generates strategieswic treaten to become self>%er%etuating so te im%licit %rogressi!ism of constructi!ism generates strategies wictreaten to become counter > %roducti!e.

,eaism is not a sef3fufiing prophecy.

-lastair <urray #olitics De%artment Cni!ersity of 6ales Swansea *econstructing *ealism 17 %. 14>5 ow if tis is directed at realism as it would seem to be it seriously misinter%rets its a%%roac. ?irst as we a!e seen teZlogic of anarcy tat realism %ortrays is not a material %enomenon but te intersub,ecti!e emanation of cumulati!e %astcoices albeit coices rooted in a material account of uman nature. If realism maintains tat tis logic re%resents arelati!ely entrenced structure it ne!erteless olds tat it is %otentially at least malleable by ,udicious statecraft. If itta0es te state to be te %rinci%al focus of tis logic in contem%orary world %olitics tere is no sense tat tis is %ermanentor final > indeed no sense tat it is e!en un%roblematic. Second te notion tat realism ignores te clas between teindi!iduals simultaneous identification as bot man and citi/en mista0es te entire trust of its wor0. If realism isconcerned wit te duties owed to te state it is only for te conflict tat tis %roduces wit te cosmo%olitan moralobligations wic fall u%on men. ird if realism insisted tat cange must be com%atible wit te national interests of testate it also recognised tat %articularly in an age of interde%endence and nuclear wea%ons a stable international ordercould ultimately only be built on some broader sense of community tan tat wic e<isted in states alone and was tuscentrally concerned wit te e<tension of community in international relations.

7ast %rinted ($4$2))( )&)))) #8

-



275221128.doc DDI 2012

1

=o &iopower impact

#iopoitics does not ine"ita&y resut in genocide

:+a%angas 5 A8i0a C of Helsin0i 8ay ?oucault Studies o. 2 tt%$$www.foucault>studies.com$no2$o,a0angas1.%dfB-dmittedly in te era of bio%olitics as ?oucault writes e!en Emassacres a!e become !ital.F is is not te caseowe!er because !iolence is idden in te foundation of bio%olitics as -gamben belie!es. -ltoug tetwentiet century tanato%olitics is te Ere!erse of bio%oliticsF it sould not be understood according to ?oucault asEte effect te result or te logical conse'uenceF of bio%olitical rationality. *ater it sould be understood as esuggests as an outcome of te Edemonic combinationF of te so!ereign %ower and bio%ower of Ete city>citi/en game and te se%erd>floc0 gameF or as I would li0e to %ut it of patria potestas Afater+s unconditional %ower oflife and deat o!er is sonB and cura !aternal Amoter+s unconditional duty to ta0e care of er cildrenB. -ltougmassacres can be carried out in te name of care tey do not follow from te logic of bio%owerfor wic deat is te Eob,ect of tabooF. ey follow from te logic of so!ereign %ower wic legitimates 0illing

by wate!er arguments it cooses be it God ature or life.

&soute power com&ined with racism are a necessary precondition for their impacts – *he aff is the

opposite direction!

:+a%angas 5 A8i0a C of Helsin0i 8ay ?oucault Studies o. 2 tt%$$www.foucault>studies.com$no2$o,a0angas1.%dfB

It is te logic of racism according to ?oucault tat ma0es 0illing acce%table in modern bio%olitical societies.is is not to say owe!er tat bio%olitical societies are necessarily more racist tan oter societies. It is to saytat in te era of bio%olitics only racism because it is a determination immanent to life can E,ustify temurderous function of te StateF. Howe!er racism can only ,ustify 0illing – 0illing tat does not follow from telogic of bio%ower but from te logic of te so!ereign %ower. *acism is in oter words te only way teso!ereign %ower te rigt to 0ill can be maintained in bio%olitical societies E*acism is bound u% wit wor0ingsof a State tat is obliged to use race te elimination of races and te %urification of te race to e<ercise itsso!ereign %ower.F() *acism is in oter words a discourse – E'uite com%atibleF(1 wit bio%olitics – trougwic bio%ower can be most smootly transformed into te form of so!ereign %ower. Suc transformationowe!er canges e!eryting. - bio%olitical society tat wises to Ee<ercise te old so!ereign rigt to 0illF e!enin te name of race ceases to be a mere bio%olitical society %racticing merely bio%olitics. It becomes aEdemonic combinationF of so!ereign %ower and bio%ower e<ercising so!ereign means for bio%olitical ends. In itsmost monstrous form it becomes te ird *eic. ?or tis reason I cannot subscribe to -gamben+s tesisaccording to wic bio%olitics is absoluti/ed in te ird *eic.(3 o be sure te ird *eic used bio%oliticalmeans – it was a state in wic Einsurance and reassurance were uni!ersalF(4 – and aimed for bio%olitical endsin order to im%ro!e te li!ing conditions of te German %eo%le >> but so did many oter nations in te 1(3)s.6at distinguises te ird *eic from tose oter nations is te fact tat alongside its bio%olitical a%%aratusit erected a massi!e macinery of deat. It became a society tat Eunleased murderous %ower or in oterwords te old so!ereign rigt to ta0e lifeF trougout te Eentire social bodyF as ?oucault %uts it.(5 It is notterefore bio%olitics tat was absoluti/ed in te ird *eic – as a matter of fact bio%olitical measures in te

a/i Germany were altoug ars relati!ely modest in scale com%ared to some %resent day welfare states – butrater te so!ereign %ower Eis %ower to 0ill wic ran troug te entire social body of a/i society wasfirst manifested wen te %ower to ta0e life te %ower of life and deat was granted not only to te State butto a wole series of indi!iduals to a considerable number of %eo%le Asuc as te S- te SS and so onB.Cltimately e!eryone in te a/i State ad te %ower of life and deat o!er is or er neigbours if only

because of te %ractice of informing wic effecti!ely meant doing away wit te %eo%le ne<t door or a!ingtem done away wit.("F e only ting tat te ird *eic actually absoluti/es is in oter words te

so!ereignty of %ower and terefore te na0edness of bare life – at least if so!ereignty is defined in te-gambenian manner Ee so!ereign is te one wit res%ect to wom all men are %otentially omines sacri andomo sacer is te one wit res%ect to wom all men act as so!ereigns.F

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5QPu7BwhH5MJ:www.foucault-studies.com/no2/ojakangas1.pdf+%22Ojakangas%22+biopower&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us#16

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5QPu7BwhH5MJ:www.foucault-studies.com/no2/ojakangas1.pdf+%22Ojakangas%22+biopower&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us#16

security k - aff

Documents