英国国家安全战略:代表后的安全

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Tara McCormack
{"title":"英国国家安全战略:代表后的安全","authors":"Tara McCormack","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This article\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>Contributes to the debate on British Foreign and Security Policy;</li>\n \n <li>Contributes to the literature on the British National Security Strategy;</li>\n \n <li>Links international relations literature with domestic policy formation literature;</li>\n \n <li>Introduces the concept of ‘legitimacy’ to foreign and security policy analysis.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>The publication of the Britain's first National Security Strategy (NSS) in 2008 marked a formal shift away from the secret state of the Cold War to the highly public protective state of today. This article is interested in the question of why the NSS and related framework have taken this particular public and explicit form. Both mainstream and critically minded academics have argued that contemporary security discourses and policies are techniques of power and governance and that the public nature of the policies is vital to this function. In this article, I argue that there has been a transformation in the nature of the British state from a representative state in which the state's authority was legitimated through a number of political mechanisms of representation, to one in which state elites and institutions need to forge new kinds of relationships with the governed. This is a key development that has been noticed in political, sociological and legal theoretical literature but as yet hardly addressed in international relations and security studies. This transformation of the state, I will argue, is intimately linked to the form and content of contemporary security policies. The contemporary state is undergoing a process of an erosion of legitimacy, which has a direct impact upon the capacity of the state to govern. In this context, policies take on the role of trying to bridge the legitimacy gap. I will argue that this shift in the state leads to a different understanding of contemporary security policies as representative of a decreasing ability to govern security, a state that is losing legitimacy and authority; that is in effect, losing its sovereignty. This article argues that British national security strategies and policies are representative of this.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"17 3","pages":"494-511"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12052","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The British National Security Strategy: Security after Representation\",\"authors\":\"Tara McCormack\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-856X.12052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>This article\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>Contributes to the debate on British Foreign and Security Policy;</li>\\n \\n <li>Contributes to the literature on the British National Security Strategy;</li>\\n \\n <li>Links international relations literature with domestic policy formation literature;</li>\\n \\n <li>Introduces the concept of ‘legitimacy’ to foreign and security policy analysis.</li>\\n </ul>\\n <p>The publication of the Britain's first National Security Strategy (NSS) in 2008 marked a formal shift away from the secret state of the Cold War to the highly public protective state of today. This article is interested in the question of why the NSS and related framework have taken this particular public and explicit form. Both mainstream and critically minded academics have argued that contemporary security discourses and policies are techniques of power and governance and that the public nature of the policies is vital to this function. In this article, I argue that there has been a transformation in the nature of the British state from a representative state in which the state's authority was legitimated through a number of political mechanisms of representation, to one in which state elites and institutions need to forge new kinds of relationships with the governed. This is a key development that has been noticed in political, sociological and legal theoretical literature but as yet hardly addressed in international relations and security studies. This transformation of the state, I will argue, is intimately linked to the form and content of contemporary security policies. The contemporary state is undergoing a process of an erosion of legitimacy, which has a direct impact upon the capacity of the state to govern. In this context, policies take on the role of trying to bridge the legitimacy gap. I will argue that this shift in the state leads to a different understanding of contemporary security policies as representative of a decreasing ability to govern security, a state that is losing legitimacy and authority; that is in effect, losing its sovereignty. This article argues that British national security strategies and policies are representative of this.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"494-511\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12052\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"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.12052\",\"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.12052","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: 11

摘要

本文对英国外交与安全政策的争论有所贡献;对英国国家安全战略的文献有贡献;将国际关系文学与国内政策形成文学联系起来;将“合法性”的概念引入外交和安全政策分析。2008年,英国首份《国家安全战略》(National Security Strategy,简称NSS)的发布,标志着英国从冷战时期的秘密状态正式转变为今天高度公开的保护状态。本文感兴趣的问题是,为什么NSS和相关框架采取了这种特定的公开和明确的形式。主流和批判性的学者都认为,当代安全话语和政策是权力和治理的技术,政策的公共性质对这一功能至关重要。在这篇文章中,我认为英国国家的性质已经发生了转变,从一个代议制国家,在这个代议制国家中,国家的权力通过一系列的政治代表机制而合法化,到一个国家精英和机构需要与被统治者建立新型关系的国家。这是政治、社会学和法律理论文献中注意到的一项关键发展,但在国际关系和安全研究中却很少涉及。我认为,国家的这种转变与当代安全政策的形式和内容密切相关。当代国家正经历着合法性被侵蚀的过程,这直接影响到国家的治理能力。在这种背景下,政策承担了试图弥合合法性鸿沟的作用。我认为国家的这种转变导致了对当代安全政策的不同理解作为管理安全能力下降的代表,一个正在失去合法性和权威的国家;这实际上是在失去主权。本文认为,英国的国家安全战略和政策是这方面的代表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The British National Security Strategy: Security after Representation

This article

  • Contributes to the debate on British Foreign and Security Policy;
  • Contributes to the literature on the British National Security Strategy;
  • Links international relations literature with domestic policy formation literature;
  • Introduces the concept of ‘legitimacy’ to foreign and security policy analysis.

The publication of the Britain's first National Security Strategy (NSS) in 2008 marked a formal shift away from the secret state of the Cold War to the highly public protective state of today. This article is interested in the question of why the NSS and related framework have taken this particular public and explicit form. Both mainstream and critically minded academics have argued that contemporary security discourses and policies are techniques of power and governance and that the public nature of the policies is vital to this function. In this article, I argue that there has been a transformation in the nature of the British state from a representative state in which the state's authority was legitimated through a number of political mechanisms of representation, to one in which state elites and institutions need to forge new kinds of relationships with the governed. This is a key development that has been noticed in political, sociological and legal theoretical literature but as yet hardly addressed in international relations and security studies. This transformation of the state, I will argue, is intimately linked to the form and content of contemporary security policies. The contemporary state is undergoing a process of an erosion of legitimacy, which has a direct impact upon the capacity of the state to govern. In this context, policies take on the role of trying to bridge the legitimacy gap. I will argue that this shift in the state leads to a different understanding of contemporary security policies as representative of a decreasing ability to govern security, a state that is losing legitimacy and authority; that is in effect, losing its sovereignty. This article argues that British national security strategies and policies are representative of this.

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