Security-defence nexus in flux: (De)securitisation of technology in the Netherlands

Q1 Arts and Humanities
M. Sezal
{"title":"Security-defence nexus in flux: (De)securitisation of technology in the Netherlands","authors":"M. Sezal","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2277456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The contemporary defence sector is dominated by dual-use technologies which have both military and civilian applications. The trade of these technologies is governed by export controls. Designation of technologies as “dual-use” and export control regimes can be considered as securitisation of such technologies. Securitisation refers to the discursive construction of existential threats. This article seeks to understand which actors desire securitisation or its opposite, desecuritisation, of technology. The contribution of this research is twofold. Firstly, securitisation of technology has implications for understanding defence and security in contemporary Europe. Secondly, identifying the actors involved in (de)securitisation allows for the analysis of their different roles in determining security discourses around technologies. The article builds on the literature on securitisation theory. Then it explores the EU-level export control regimes and afterwards focuses on a single case study of the Netherlands both as representative of smaller European states with an SME-heavy defence sector and as an example of an expanded export control regime by a member state. To conduct the analysis, I use the data obtained through a workshop with representatives of Dutch defence companies as well as a survey that has been answered by security and defence experts.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"86 1","pages":"665 - 686"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Defence Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The contemporary defence sector is dominated by dual-use technologies which have both military and civilian applications. The trade of these technologies is governed by export controls. Designation of technologies as “dual-use” and export control regimes can be considered as securitisation of such technologies. Securitisation refers to the discursive construction of existential threats. This article seeks to understand which actors desire securitisation or its opposite, desecuritisation, of technology. The contribution of this research is twofold. Firstly, securitisation of technology has implications for understanding defence and security in contemporary Europe. Secondly, identifying the actors involved in (de)securitisation allows for the analysis of their different roles in determining security discourses around technologies. The article builds on the literature on securitisation theory. Then it explores the EU-level export control regimes and afterwards focuses on a single case study of the Netherlands both as representative of smaller European states with an SME-heavy defence sector and as an example of an expanded export control regime by a member state. To conduct the analysis, I use the data obtained through a workshop with representatives of Dutch defence companies as well as a survey that has been answered by security and defence experts.
变化中的安全-防御关系:荷兰技术的(去)安全化
摘要 当代国防部门以军民两用技术为主导。这些技术的贸易受出口管制的制约。指定技术为 "军民两用 "技术和出口管制制度可被视为此类技术的安全化。安全化是指对生存威胁的话语建构。本文试图了解哪些行为者希望技术安全化或与之相反的去安全化。本研究有两方面的贡献。首先,技术的安全化对理解当代欧洲的国防与安全具有影响。其次,确定参与(去)安全化的行为者可以分析他们在决定围绕技术的安全论述方面所扮演的不同角色。文章以安全化理论文献为基础。然后,文章探讨了欧盟层面的出口管制制度,随后重点研究了荷兰的单一案例,荷兰既是国防部门中小企业密集的欧洲小国的代表,也是成员国扩大出口管制制度的范例。为了进行分析,我使用了通过与荷兰国防公司代表的研讨会以及安全和国防专家的调查所获得的数据。
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
Defence Studies
Defence Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信