Securitization Theory by Rita Floyd
N/A, 2024
Ontological security and the Copenhagen school's societal security are both concerned with identi... more Ontological security and the Copenhagen school's societal security are both concerned with identity. While the existing literature on ontological security has made use of the Copenhagen school's concept of securitization, the linkage between societal and ontological security is unclear. Are they different, or does one subsume the other? This article uses the case of majority fears of minority threats to examine the difference between the two concepts. The article shows that the two are distinct-albeit complementary-concepts that explain different things in the security-identity nexus. Securitization theory explains that majorities sometimes designate minorities a threat to their chosen collective identity, while ontological security explains why individual persons-who possess multiple identities-assent to that securitization, including by agreeing to it as audiences, or by requesting it of powerful elites. The article goes on to examine the implications of this 'ontologicalsocietal security node' for policymakers and practitioners.
Paper presented at ISA 2023 Annual Convention, Montréal: (Slot Code: SC32) Innovations in Securitization Studies, 2023
For context, please note that this chapter is part of a planned edited book provisionally called ... more For context, please note that this chapter is part of a planned edited book provisionally called The Big Picture as an approach to the study of International Relations: Working with and beyond Barry Buzan (Editors Rita Floyd and Laust Schouenborg). The introduction to this book argues as follows: [….] In this volume, we wish to examine the promises and pitfalls of Barry Buzan's unique approach to IR theorizing, which we label big picture theorizing. The choice of Buzan will be made clear shortly. Big picture theorizing, or BPT Buzan-style, combines the following trades:
The ethics of securitisation: an interview with Rita Floyd
Critical Studies on Terrorism , 2021
Interview with Rita Floyd about her work on the ethics of securitization
Securitisation and the function of functional actors
Critical Studies on Security , 2020
This article examines the neglected category of functional actor in securitisation processes. I a... more This article examines the neglected category of functional actor in securitisation processes. I argue that functional actors are a useful analytical category only if such actors are functionally distinct from other actors. A close analysis of Security: A New Framework for Analysis reveals that this is not the case; the majority of the functions such actors have are covered by other actors. The exception is that they may contest securitisation; yet in securitisation studies this function has become associated not with functional actors but with audiences. I show that when the audience is conceived in line with its meaning in common usage (i.e. as the addressee of speech (acts)) only specific actors (most notably, referent objects who are promised protection via securitising moves) can object to securitisation, and only on securitisations (ostensibly) intended to save them. Given that actors other than referent objects/threateners regularly object to securitisation, I go on to locate the ability to veto/endorse securitisation on behalf of others with functional actors. The remainder of the article distils functional actors into different categories/roles. I show that scholars too are functional actors; ergo they do not need likeminded audiences to stage critical interventions.
Evidence of securitisation in the economic sector of security in Europe? Russia’s economic blackmail of Ukraine and the EU’s conditional bailout of Cyprus
European Security , 2019
Although the Copenhagen school’s securitisation theory and their sectoral analysis are integral p... more Although the Copenhagen school’s securitisation theory and their sectoral analysis are integral parts of European security studies, the school’s economic sector of security has almost been completely ignored. In this article I examine why this is, and whether it makes sense to retain this sector. In the process I flesh out the logic of securitisation in the economic sector. I suggest that one reason why the economic sector of security has been neglected is that real life examples fitting the Copenhagen school’s logic of security as the exception have – in this sector – remained outstanding. Research in other sectors of security has shown however that securitisation does not need to include extraordinary countermeasures; instead it can play out below the level of the exception. Using alternative formulations developed in securitisation studies that relax the threshold for the success of securitisation, I attempt to locate evidence of economic securitisation by looking at two empirical cases. 1) Russia’s economic blackmail of Ukraine at the start of that country’s ongoing crisis. 2) The EU’s conditional bailout of Cyprus during the Eurozone crisis which necessitated capital controls. On the basis of the empirical evidence gathered I conclude by arguing the case for the economic sector of security.
Collective securitisation in the EU: normative dimensions
West European Politics , 2018
Discussions of collective political actors and normativity usually refer to the greater responsib... more Discussions of collective political actors and normativity usually refer to the greater responsibility collectives (such as the EU) enjoy when acting upon the ills of the world either because such bodies are able to pool capabilities or because they enjoy the credibility of leading by example. Following a different line of argument, this article suggests that collective securitisation poses two hitherto unacknowledged normative issues. The first concerns the question whether just (morally permissible) collective securitisation requires unanimity, or second best, majority consensus on the need for, and the means of, securitisation by the constitutive member states of the collective. The second issue is related to individual states disaggregated from collective security actors. Specifically, ought those states culpable in threat creation be more liable for bearing the financial costs of collective securitisation?
Parallels with the hate speech debate: the pros and cons of criminalising harmful securitising requests
This article argues that public expressions of Islamophobia are best understood as securitising r... more This article argues that public expressions of Islamophobia are best understood as securitising requests (that is, calls on powerful figures/bodies to treat an issue in security mode so that extraordinary measures can be used to combat it), especially in those cases where Muslims are feared and disliked because of the perception that Islamic people are prone to terrorism. This article argues that harmful and derogatory securitising requests targeting racial, ethnic, or religious minorities are on par with hate speech and it highlights the fact that many contemporary societies are now seeking legal protections against such security speech (expressed most notably in the desire to ban Islamophobia). It is from this perspective that this article poses an important research question: With a view to protecting those adversely affected, are legal protections against harmful and offensive securitising requests justified? The research question can be answered by drawing parallels to the existing hate speech debate in legal and political theory. The research reveals that, although the case against legal protections of harmful and defamatory security speech is ultimately more convincing, security speech alone can be so damaging that it should be informed by a number of ethical considerations. This article goes on to suggest three criteria for governing the ethics of requesting securitisation. As such this article fills a lacuna in the ‘positive/negative debate’ on the ethics of security that has engaged with securitisation, but that has failed to consider the ethics of speaking security.
This paper is concerned with two interrelated problems in the Copenhagen School’s (CS) securitiza... more This paper is concerned with two interrelated problems in the Copenhagen School’s (CS) securitization theory. The first is the challenge non-exceptional security polices pose to the theory, which starts from the assumption that securitization is ‘successful’ only when extraordinary emergency measures are adopted. The second arises not from what factors define securitization’s ‘success’, but rather from who does so. Securitization theory suffers from a constructivist deficit because the criterion for the ‘success’ of securitization is set by scholars, when a more ‘radically constructivist [theory] regarding security’ (Buzan et al., 1998: 204) would require practitioners to be in charge of defining the ‘success’ of securitization. The paper offers a solution to both of these problems by suggesting that securitization is ‘successful’ only when (1) the identification of a threat that justifies a response (securitizing move) is followed by (2) a change of behaviour (action) by a relevant agent (that is, the securitizing actor or someone instructed by the same), and also (3) the action taken is justified by the securitizing actor with reference to the threat he/she identified and declared in the securitizing move. It goes on to reject the ideas of a sanctioning audience and of the insistence on existential threats as also set by the CS.
Rita Floyd has recently been awarded her PhD from the University of Warwick, where she will comme... more Rita Floyd has recently been awarded her PhD from the University of Warwick, where she will commence an ESRC postdoctoral fellowship in early 2008. She has previously published in the "Review of International Studies" and the "Journal of International Relations and Development."
Review of International Studies, 2007
This article constitutes an attempted bridge-building between the so-called 'Copenhagen School' a... more This article constitutes an attempted bridge-building between the so-called 'Copenhagen School' and the so-called 'Welsh School' of security studies. The thesis of communality rests upon an evaluative bifurcation of the concept of securitisation into positive and negative securitisation. In tandem with this lies a bifurcation of the concept of desecuritisation into positive and negative desecuritisation. The two positive concepts are believed to be of equal value, with both trumping over the two negative concepts.
Uploads
Securitization Theory by Rita Floyd