Progressive and Regressive Securitisation: Covid, Russian Aggression and the Ethics of Security

Q4 Social Sciences
Thomas Diez
{"title":"Progressive and Regressive Securitisation: Covid, Russian Aggression and the Ethics of Security","authors":"Thomas Diez","doi":"10.51870/pxrr4789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper contributes to the debate about the normative assessment of securitisation in light of Covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It develops the distinction of progressive and regressive securitisation. In doing so, it emphasises the processual, contextual and ambiguous nature of securitisation. I suggest that progressive securitisation is closely linked to the solidarisation, whereas regressive securitisation implies the pluralisation of international society. The two cases of Covid-19 and Russia illustrate that international order has increasingly been characterised by regressive securitisation and a pluralisation of international society, despite possible alternatives, such as a transnational response to the spread of Covid-19. They have thus contributed to the further demise of the post–Cold War liberal order, which despite its problems, has involved a re-orientation of security away from state territory and national identity as the core referent objects. I end with a plea to take the ethics of security more seriously again, and in particular to scrutinise the ways in which our own behaviour reinforces regressive securitisation.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"190 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51870/pxrr4789","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper contributes to the debate about the normative assessment of securitisation in light of Covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It develops the distinction of progressive and regressive securitisation. In doing so, it emphasises the processual, contextual and ambiguous nature of securitisation. I suggest that progressive securitisation is closely linked to the solidarisation, whereas regressive securitisation implies the pluralisation of international society. The two cases of Covid-19 and Russia illustrate that international order has increasingly been characterised by regressive securitisation and a pluralisation of international society, despite possible alternatives, such as a transnational response to the spread of Covid-19. They have thus contributed to the further demise of the post–Cold War liberal order, which despite its problems, has involved a re-orientation of security away from state territory and national identity as the core referent objects. I end with a plea to take the ethics of security more seriously again, and in particular to scrutinise the ways in which our own behaviour reinforces regressive securitisation.
渐进式与渐进式证券化:新冠病毒、俄罗斯侵略与安全伦理
本文有助于在2019冠状病毒病和俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的情况下对证券化进行规范评估的辩论。它发展了渐进式证券化和渐进式证券化的区别。在这样做的过程中,它强调了证券化的过程性、背景性和模糊性。我认为,渐进式证券化与国际社会的团结紧密相关,而倒退式证券化则意味着国际社会的多元化。Covid-19和俄罗斯的两个案例表明,尽管可能有其他选择,例如对Covid-19的传播采取跨国应对措施,但国际秩序的特征越来越多地体现为倒退的证券化和国际社会的多元化。因此,它们促成了冷战后自由主义秩序的进一步消亡,尽管存在问题,但它涉及到安全的重新定位,不再将国家领土和民族身份作为核心参照对象。最后,我恳请大家再次更加严肃地对待安全伦理问题,尤其是仔细审视我们自己的行为是如何强化退化的证券化的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (CEJISS) was founded by Mitchell Belfer (Editor in Chief), David Erkomaishvili (Deputy Editor in Chief), Nigorakhon Turakhanova (Head of the Academic Centre) and Petr Kucera, in December 2006, as an autonomous wing of the Department of International Relations and European Studies at Metropolitan University Prague. The initial goal was to develop, and project globally, a uniquely Central European take on unfolding international and security issues. This entailed an initial “out-reach” programme to attract scholars from throughout the four Central European states – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic – to participate in the journal as authors and members of the Editorial and (then) Advisory Boards. By the time of the first issue however, it became clear that CEJISS was also capable of acting as a platform for non-Central European scholars to present their academic research to a more regionalised audience. From issue 1:1 in June 2007 until the present, CEJISS has become, quite literally, a two-way street—it helps Central European scholars enter international academia and international scholars enter Central Europe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信