Security and the Environment - Sociology - Lecture Slides, Slides of Sociology

Download Security and the Environment - Sociology - Lecture Slides and more Slides Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!

Security and the Environment

What is the book manuscript about?

• Two research agendas:
• 1. US environmental security (1993 – 2008)
• 2. test ‘securitisation theory’
• Case study = insights into national security and holds lessons for ‘climate security’ (re-run of ES debate)
• Three research questions:
• Why did the Clinton administration securitise the environment?
• What happened to environmental security under the Bush administration from 2001 -2008?
• How can we morally evaluate environmental security?

A revised securitisation theory

1. The ‘audience’ is a normative concept in analytical disguise (no direct role for audience)
2. With audience gone, indicators of securitisation become vital to locate the success of securitisation
3. Consequence: securitisation is not a speech act
4. Instead: securitisation consists of two separate events 1) securitising move (warning and promising) + 2) ‘security practice’ (the latter determined with indicators)
5. Benefit: Insights into why actors securitise

Types of securitisation

• Cops few insights into why securitising actors securitise
• assumption referent-object benefiting securitisation (ROBS)
• ROBS, however, requires fulfilment of J. L Austin’s sincerity and accordance condition
• If not fulfilled speech act not void – but ‘unhappy’ (note speech acts can’t be right or wrong only felicitous or infelicitous)
• Sincerity and accordance interesting in so far as there is a discrepancy between ‘saying’ and ‘doing’
• Was/is a securitisation consistent with the threats the securitising actor themselves identified?
• Agent-benefiting securitisation

US environmental security 1993-

• Securitising move = protect the American

people from environmental degradation

• Security practice = defence environmental

security (greening of the military)

• Who benefited?
• Case of agent-benefiting securitisation

US environmental security 2001 – 2008

• Environmental security incompatible with the war effort
• Desecuritisation as depoliticisation
• Why does this matter? Different reading of politicisation not strictly counter example to COPS
• Responsibility of analyst
• The questions we need to ask are: 1) who should benefit from environmental security? And, 2) when if ever is environmental security morally right and good (positive)?

How can we morally evaluate

environmental security?

• Probable consequences of environmental security
• Consequentialist ethic two maxims:
• 1. that the rightness of an action is to be judged solely by

consequences

• 2. the right action is the one which maximises the best

consequences

• Copenhagen school themselves are consequentialist

Consequentialist evaluation of

environmental security

• Consequentialism ‘theory of the right’ only –

needs to be accompanied by an agent-neutral

‘theory of value’

• Anthropocentric environmental ethics: global

non-human natural environment is agent

neutrally valuable because is supports human

life

Positive and negative desecuritisation

• Two types of desecuritisation
• Given my definition of politicisation: Should

environmental issues be dealt with by formal office holders?

• Yes
• In the environmental sector thus desecuritisation as

politicisation positive, desecuritisation as depoliticisation negative