《寻求安全政治

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Jonathan Bright
{"title":"《寻求安全政治","authors":"Jonathan Bright","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This article\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>Provides an exploration of why security politics might change the behaviour of parliaments or legislatures, bringing together theory from diverse fields;</li>\n \n <li>Illustrates a series of potential ways of measuring legislative behaviour;</li>\n \n <li>Is a systematic quantitative test for the existence of security politics in a field which relies almost exclusively on qualitative methodology;</li>\n \n <li>Contributes to the current debate in the field of critical security studies over the definition of the politics of security.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>This article takes up the recent challenge to critical security studies posed by Browning and McDonald to define the effects of ‘the politics of security’. It focuses in particular on the behaviour of legislatures during the passage of legislation relating to crime and security. Effective scrutiny of this type of policy is crucial, but legislatures are often accused of failing to provide it. However, empirical work in the area remains limited: we know little about exactly how legislatures change their behaviour at such critical junctures. This article seeks to fill this gap. It offers firstly an exploration of diverse strands of work on the notion of ‘security politics’. Secondly, it offers an empirical test based on a dataset covering UK legislation from the period 2007–2012. The results suggest the appearance of security legislation causes parliament to heighten scrutiny, raising questions about the real nature of ‘security politics’.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"17 4","pages":"585-603"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12054","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Search of the Politics of Security\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Bright\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-856X.12054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>This article\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>Provides an exploration of why security politics might change the behaviour of parliaments or legislatures, bringing together theory from diverse fields;</li>\\n \\n <li>Illustrates a series of potential ways of measuring legislative behaviour;</li>\\n \\n <li>Is a systematic quantitative test for the existence of security politics in a field which relies almost exclusively on qualitative methodology;</li>\\n \\n <li>Contributes to the current debate in the field of critical security studies over the definition of the politics of security.</li>\\n </ul>\\n <p>This article takes up the recent challenge to critical security studies posed by Browning and McDonald to define the effects of ‘the politics of security’. It focuses in particular on the behaviour of legislatures during the passage of legislation relating to crime and security. Effective scrutiny of this type of policy is crucial, but legislatures are often accused of failing to provide it. However, empirical work in the area remains limited: we know little about exactly how legislatures change their behaviour at such critical junctures. This article seeks to fill this gap. It offers firstly an exploration of diverse strands of work on the notion of ‘security politics’. Secondly, it offers an empirical test based on a dataset covering UK legislation from the period 2007–2012. The results suggest the appearance of security legislation causes parliament to heighten scrutiny, raising questions about the real nature of ‘security politics’.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"585-603\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12054\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12054\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文探讨了为什么安全政治可能改变议会或立法机构的行为,汇集了来自不同领域的理论;说明一系列衡量立法行为的可能方法;是对安全政治在一个几乎完全依赖定性方法论的领域中存在的系统定量检验;有助于当前在安全政治定义的关键安全研究领域的辩论。这篇文章接受了勃朗宁和麦克唐纳最近提出的对关键安全研究的挑战,以定义“安全政治”的影响。它特别侧重于立法机关在通过有关犯罪和安全的立法时的行为。对这类政策的有效审查至关重要,但立法机构经常被指责未能提供这种审查。然而,这一领域的实证工作仍然有限:我们对立法机构如何在如此关键的时刻改变其行为知之甚少。本文试图填补这一空白。它首先提供了对“安全政治”概念的各种工作的探索。其次,本文基于涵盖2007-2012年英国立法的数据集进行了实证检验。结果表明,安全立法的出现导致议会加强审查,引发了对“安全政治”本质的质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In Search of the Politics of Security

This article

  • Provides an exploration of why security politics might change the behaviour of parliaments or legislatures, bringing together theory from diverse fields;
  • Illustrates a series of potential ways of measuring legislative behaviour;
  • Is a systematic quantitative test for the existence of security politics in a field which relies almost exclusively on qualitative methodology;
  • Contributes to the current debate in the field of critical security studies over the definition of the politics of security.

This article takes up the recent challenge to critical security studies posed by Browning and McDonald to define the effects of ‘the politics of security’. It focuses in particular on the behaviour of legislatures during the passage of legislation relating to crime and security. Effective scrutiny of this type of policy is crucial, but legislatures are often accused of failing to provide it. However, empirical work in the area remains limited: we know little about exactly how legislatures change their behaviour at such critical junctures. This article seeks to fill this gap. It offers firstly an exploration of diverse strands of work on the notion of ‘security politics’. Secondly, it offers an empirical test based on a dataset covering UK legislation from the period 2007–2012. The results suggest the appearance of security legislation causes parliament to heighten scrutiny, raising questions about the real nature of ‘security politics’.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: BJPIR provides an outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain Founded in 1999, BJPIR is now based in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham. It is a major refereed journal published by Blackwell Publishing under the auspices of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. BJPIR is committed to acting as a broadly-based outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain. A fully refereed journal, it publishes topical, scholarly work on significant debates in British scholarship and on all major political issues affecting Britain"s relationship to Europe and the world.
×
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