After Securitisation: Diplomats as De-Securitisers

I. Neumann
{"title":"After Securitisation: Diplomats as De-Securitisers","authors":"I. Neumann","doi":"10.15388/BJPS.2012.1.428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After securitisation, there comes the further intensivation of a conflict, or violisation, or de-securitization. De-securitisation has many forms, one being diplomatisation. The article discusses peace and reconciliation work by states that are third parties to a conflict, and fastens on the pioneering state in terms of institutionalization, which is Norway. Following the Cold War, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs engaged in this field broadly. Institutionalisation hit during the 2000s. Norwegian diplomacy facilitators think of de-securitisation in four steps: mapping the parties to a conflict, clearing their path to the table, assisting in their deliberations going across that table, being indirectly involved in the monitoring of agreements. The article concludes with a suggestion to the Copenhagen School. By adapting Austin and Searle’s speech act perspective, Wittgenstein’s general understanding of linguistic and other practices have been left behind. It is time to leave the cold analytics of speech act theory behind and reclaim the full thrust of Wittgenstein’s work, which was geared towards the constitutive role of practices for everything social. We need more empirical studies of violising practices, as well as of de-securitising legal and diplomatic practices.","PeriodicalId":33612,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/BJPS.2012.1.428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract After securitisation, there comes the further intensivation of a conflict, or violisation, or de-securitization. De-securitisation has many forms, one being diplomatisation. The article discusses peace and reconciliation work by states that are third parties to a conflict, and fastens on the pioneering state in terms of institutionalization, which is Norway. Following the Cold War, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs engaged in this field broadly. Institutionalisation hit during the 2000s. Norwegian diplomacy facilitators think of de-securitisation in four steps: mapping the parties to a conflict, clearing their path to the table, assisting in their deliberations going across that table, being indirectly involved in the monitoring of agreements. The article concludes with a suggestion to the Copenhagen School. By adapting Austin and Searle’s speech act perspective, Wittgenstein’s general understanding of linguistic and other practices have been left behind. It is time to leave the cold analytics of speech act theory behind and reclaim the full thrust of Wittgenstein’s work, which was geared towards the constitutive role of practices for everything social. We need more empirical studies of violising practices, as well as of de-securitising legal and diplomatic practices.
证券化后:外交官作为去证券化者
在证券化之后,冲突或违规或去证券化进一步加剧。去证券化有多种形式,其中之一就是外交化。本文讨论了作为冲突第三方的国家的和平与和解工作,并着重讨论了制度化方面的先驱国家,即挪威。冷战结束后,挪威外交部广泛地从事这一领域的工作。制度化在2000年代受到冲击。挪威的外交促进者认为去证券化分为四个步骤:确定冲突各方的位置,为他们扫清通往谈判桌的道路,协助他们在谈判桌上进行审议,间接参与对协议的监督。文章最后对哥本哈根学派提出了建议。通过采用奥斯汀和塞尔的言语行为视角,维特根斯坦对语言和其他实践的一般理解被抛在了后面。现在是时候把言语行为理论的冷酷分析抛在脑后,重新找回维特根斯坦的全部工作,这是面向所有社会实践的构成作用的。我们需要对违规行为进行更多的实证研究,以及对法律和外交行为进行去证券化的研究。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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