Copenhagen school International Security in the Modern World Masaryk University in Brno 1-2 July 2012 Věra Stojarová Copenhagen school •Widening of the security concept •Deepening of the security concept •Realism and social constructivism Copenhagen school •State as the main referent object for •Military • political • environmental • economical security •Society the main referent object for the societal security Copenhagen school •Security is negative problem. Security policy deals with the in-security problems. •Securitisation is perceived negatively and in its contrary stands desecuritisation – move of certain theme from the security agenda into the political sphere. •Desecuritisation happens mainly in the democratisation processes while creating the common norms. Social constructivism politisation – it becomes part of public policy, and needs the governmental decisions and the allocation of public spending. •If the issue is presented as existential threat which justifies the non-standard governmental procedures it is in the process of securitisation – process of social construction of threats and risks when certain issue becomes security issue not because the real existing threat but because it is presented as a threat and this presentation is accepted by the society. Copenhagen school •„Existential threat is determined by the political actor not by the analyst. The objective evaluation of security is behind the possibilities of analysis.“ Main concepts •Referential object – entity which is threatened and has legitimate right for survival (state, nation, the survival is preservation of national identity, state sovereignty) •Securitisation actor – the one who securitises •Functional actor – influences the dynamic of the sector Referential object •entity which is threatened and has legitimate right for survival •Political regimes, firms or bureaucratically apparatuses do not have this right and can not be referential objects •Environment could be seen as referential object of environmental security •State is the most important referential object Securitisation actors •Securitisation actor is presented by an entity which presents certain issue as security threat through speech act •Securitisation actors could be political elites, government, lobby, pressure groups. •They argue with the security of the state, nation, civilisation, society, principle or system Functional actor •Functional actor influences dynamic of a sector and substantially influences the decision process in the security field. •The functional actor in the environmental sector could be e.g. Firms polluting the environment. Security according to the Copenhagen school levels International (system) regional (system) State Interstate group Human being Sectors military political societal economical environmental Regional dynamic Copenhagen school poses these questions: 1) Does security have in environmental and economical sector the same dynamic in the political and military sector? 2) Are the security regions in the other sectors same big as in the traditional security regions? • Buzan sets hypothesis that the post bipolar world will show higher level of regionalisation while showing decreasing globalisation Securitisation on different levels of analysis Dynamic/se military ctors economical enviro societal nment al political global **** **** ** *** Nonregiona ** l subsystemi c ** ** ** * Regional **** *** *** **** **** Local *** **** ** *** ** ** **** dominant securitisation, ***subdominant securitisation, **small securitisation, * no securitisation •The result thesis is that the regional level will play important role in the security constellations. Critics of the copenhagen school •Traditionalists criticise and ask where is the border of widening and deepening?? •Most of the critiques admitted the existence of the environmental, economical, societal and political threats but did not want to put them on the same level as the military threats. The need for attack or withdrawal of military forces must remain the main goal of the strategic analysis (Chipman 1991: 129) Critics and followers of the copenhagen school •Third world school - Mohammed Ayoob •Claims that the economical and societal threats are not for the developing countries relevant and that the biggest threat for this region comes from the weak states •Weak states are overwhelmed by the internal threats rather than by external •Ayoob proposes regional society •The creation of regional society is enabled by the key central power which is recognized as legitimate in the region. The legitimacy is based on the military and technological capacity, on the power of external relations etc. Critique from the sociologists •Identity is not statical, it is understood as a process not as an object. Unlike with the state the identity does not leave any sediment and can not be rigid. The Copenhagen school is wrong when taking identity as unchanging entity. The individual can have more identities which are not contradictory. (McSweeney 1998: 138) Christopher Freeman and his critique •11. 9. 2001 critises the regionalist aspect in Buzan and says that the current primary threats stem not from neighbouring states but rather from the rogue states e.g.an, Iraq, Israel, Korea, India, Pakistan.“ (Freeman 2001) •Does not take in account the globalisation, economical interdependency and the new world order i which distance does not play any role. Gender and other critique •Criticising the lack of gender security •Mary Anne Warren – gendercide – the abortions of the female fetus •Copenhagen school does not deal with the sexual orientation, handicapped people or violence aimed at the political group (politicide). (Hough 2004: 106-132) Seminar •Where is the border?? Pedofiles, zoofiles as referent objects?? •What do you think about globalisation vs. regionalisation? •Is identity statical? •Should security deal with handicapped, people with different sexual orientation,political group? •Any other?