Andrew W. Neal

Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: The Origins of FRONTEX*

Documenting the origins, remit and practices of the European external borders agency FRONTEX, this article argues that FRONTEX is not the product of ‘securitizing’ links between terrorism, security, migration and borders made by EU institutions in response to 9/11, but rather of their failure. In so doing, the article critiques securization theory in comparison to the alternative modality of risk.

Foucault in Guantánamo: Towards an Archaeology of the Exception

This article offers a critique of the discourse that has emerged around the problem of ‘the exception’. ‘The exception’ is shorthand for the problem of certain events and situations, such as 9/11, being designated as ‘exceptional’ in order to legitimate exceptional policies, practices, executive measures and laws. The article terms this discourse and practice ‘exceptionalism’. It begins by identifying problems in the treatment of the exception and exceptionalism in the work of Carl Schmitt, Giorgio Agamben and securitization theorist Ole WÊver. A different theoretical approach to the problem of the exception is then offered, drawing upon Michel Foucaults early work, The Archaeology of Knowledge. The narrative focuses on the detail of Foucaults ‘archaeological’ methodology, relating it to specific problems in the political-theoretical discourse of exceptionalism. The reasons for an emphasis on ‘archaeology’ rather than Foucaults later ‘genealogical’ slant are explained. The article concludes by arguing that ‘archaeology’ – conceived as a neo-Kantian mode of critique that is discursive and historicist – is a more appropriate and less problematic method for engaging with the problem of the exception.

Foucault on politics, security and war

Introduction M.Dillon& A.W.Neal PART I: SITUATING FOUCAULT Strategies for Waging Peace: Foucault as Collaborateur S.Elden PART II: POLITICS, SOVEREIGNTY, VIOLENCE Goodbye War on Terror? Foucault and Butler on Discourses of Law, War and Exceptionalism A.W.Neal Life Struggles: War, Discipline, and Biopolitics in the Thought of Michel Foucault J.Reid Security: A Field Left Fallow D.Bigo Revisiting Francos Death: Life and Death and Bio-Political Governmentality P.Palladino PART III: BIOS, NOMOS, RACE Law Versus History: Foucaults Genealogy of Modern Sovereignty M.Valverde The Politics of Death: Race War, Bio-Power and AIDS in the Post-Apartheid D.Fassin Security, Race, and War M.Dillon

Terrorism, Lawmaking, and Democratic Politics: Legislators as Security Actors

Counterterrorist law is all too often made in a rushed, reactive, and repetitious way, marginalizing the deliberative, critical, and democratic functions of legislatures and leading to outcomes that later prove to be unconstitutional and counter-productive for public security. Using a political sociology approach, the article offers an analysis and theorisation of the practice of counterterrorist lawmaking. Through the UK example, the article argues that counterterrorist lawmaking compounds the existing unequal power relationships of the parliamentary field, and presents legislators with an inscrutable dilemma about the true stakes involved in legislative security politics.

‘Events dear boy, events’: terrorism and security from the perspective of politics

This article asks what it would mean to consider terrorism and security from the perspective of politics. It argues that security politics – defined as the activity of politicians when connected in some way to security – has been largely excluded from existing scholarly approaches to terrorism and security. In contrast to the assumptions about existential threat and sovereign/executive power characteristic of existing approaches, the article argues that if we consider security in terms of what is at stake for politicians, then it can no longer be considered as separate from ‘normal’ politics. From the perspective of politics, security events are just like other politically salient events.

Rethinking Foucault in International Relations: Promiscuity and Unfaithfulness

Foucault and those who employ his work are coming under two sets of demands. First, what can Foucault say about the international and about capitalism? Second, are claims about “global governmentality”, which upscale Foucauldian concepts, defensible? The essays in this special issue do a good job of meeting both demands. In this short response, I will try to give a very general answer explaining why. Foucault studied rationalities of government, that is, the emergent selfunderstandings of those who would seek to govern, or through their ideas, innovations, practices and interactions, contribute to assemblages that amount to forms of government. What seemed to intrigue Foucault was how new or altered rationalities of government emerge in history and take hold. These are not new ideologies, eras, paradigms or systems that take a total hold on individuals, groups and populations, but practices that cohere just enough to become significant and describable. Foucault does not describe these assemblages just out of historical interest, although to a casual reader this might at first appear to be the case. His meticulous descriptive histories have a significance; this is where the term “history of the present” has taken hold. But this significance is not always obvious and is often rather oblique. For example, The Birth of Biopolitics is the latest of the Collège de France lecture series to be published in English and to be received enthusiastically. It speaks to the present by helping us to understand the rationalities that animate “neoliberal” forms of government and make certain governmental practices make sense and appear intelligible. Does this mean that through Foucault we can find the origins of neoliberalism? Perhaps, perhaps not. Origins are never simple starting points, carte blanche. Ideas and practices build on previous ideas and practices, alter them, amend them, improve them, add to them. Foucault’s genealogical problematisation of origins is well understood. From this perspective neoliberalism is a rationality of government that appears rational in specific historical circumstances, under certain historical conditions. Foucault describes the emergence of neoliberalism as a rationality of government, but does this mean that neoliberalism is now with us and we can now treat it as an object? Does it now exist? The danger is that we take lessons from Foucault and then forget them, or at least incorporate them into our academic systems of thought. The first time we encounter Foucault we find histories that reveal so much about the present, and Global Society, Vol. 23, No. 4, October, 2009

Europe, Knowledge, Politics — Engaging with the Limits: The c.a.s.e. collective Responds

HAVING ONE’S WORK closely read and critically debated is a rare pleasure. It was thus with great joy that we saw that our collective article ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’ (c.a.s.e. collective, 2006) provoked several thoughtful responses to the theoretical premises of the manifesto and its intellectual and political ramifications. The replies to the manifesto created a new space of selfinterrogation in which the c.a.s.e. collective grappled with some of the limits that our critics addressed. Before we address some of these more directly, it may be useful to restate the original objective of the collective manifesto. First, the authors that were part of the collective had a desire to push critical innovations in security studies beyond the framing of critical security studies in terms of schools. The aim of working and writing as a collective, as a network of scholars who do not agree on everything yet share a common perspective, was based on a desire to break with the competitive dynamics of individualist research agendas. Alluding to the emancipatory connotations of the word ‘manifesto’, the aim of the article was to carve out and open up an intellectual space for critical thinking – both in the disciplinary sense of formulating an alternative space to mainstream security studies and in the political sense of thinking through the ethico-political implications of security and securitizationHAVING ONE’S WORK closely read and critically debated is a rare pleasure. It was thus with great joy that we saw that our collective article ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’ (c.a.s.e. collective, 2006) provoked several thoughtful responses to the theoretical premises of the manifesto and its intellectual and political ramifications. The replies to the manifesto created a new space of selfinterrogation in which the c.a.s.e. collective grappled with some of the limits that our critics addressed. Before we address some of these more directly, it may be useful to restate the original objective of the collective manifesto. First, the authors that were part of the collective had a desire to push critical innovations in security studies beyond the framing of critical security studies in terms of schools. The aim of working and writing as a collective, as a network of scholars who do not agree on everything yet share a common perspective, was based on a desire to break with the competitive dynamics of individualist research agendas. Alluding to the emancipatory connotations of the word ‘manifesto’,1 the aim of the article was to carve out and open up an intellectual space for critical thinking – both in the disciplinary sense of formulating an alternative space to mainstream security studies and in the political sense of thinking through the ethico-political implications of security and securitization. If, in this sense, the article can be read as a manifesto (with, we should note, the important prefix ‘networked’), we did not assert, as Andreas Behnke Rejoinder

Human Interest and Humane Governance in Iraq: Humanitarian War and the Baghdad Zoo

Abstract This article argues that the story of the Baghdad zoo in the Iraq war and the ‘human interest’ it attracted are important for the analysis of warfare and humanitarian intervention. The activities at the zoo are notable precisely because they provide a specific site through which to analyse the increasing entanglements between war and humanitarianism, and practices associated with civil–military cooperation. The recovery and reconstruction efforts at the Baghdad zoo brought together a diverse, ad hoc assemblage of civilian, military, local and international actors around a common problem: how to turn a symbol of the tyranny and ‘backwardness’ of the Hussein regime into a space that would foster liberal humane values amongst the Iraqi population. The activities at the zoo thus tell us much about the kind of warfare that not only involves lethal force, but also fosters civilian and military action in reforming a carceral and leisure institution. They also reveal a broader aspiration of reforming the whole Iraqi population around an idea of humane governance, while providing a potentially profitable investment opportunity for foreign speculators.

Security in a Small Nation : Scotland, Democracy, Politics

The 2014 Referendum on Scottish independence sparked debate on every dimension of modern statehood. Levels of public interest and engagement were unprecedented, as demonstrated by record-breaking voter turnout. Yet aside from Trident, the issue of security was relatively neglected in the campaigns, and there remains a lack of literature on the topic. In this volume Andrew Neal has collated a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives on security and constitutional change in Scotland and the UK, including writing from experts in foreign policy analysis, intelligence studies, parliamentary studies, and journalism. Security in a Small Nation provides an illuminating analysis of the politics of security. Its authors reflect on a number of related issues including international comparisons, alliances, regional cooperation, terrorism, intelligence sharing, democratic oversight, and media coverage. It has a particular focus on what security means for small states and democratic politics. The book draws on current debates about the extent of intelligence powers and their implications for accountability, privacy, and human rights. It examines the foreign and security policy of other small states through the prism of Scottish independence, providing unique insight into the bureaucratic and political processes associated with multi-level security governance. These contributions provide a detailed picture of the changing landscape of security, including the role of diverse and decentralised agencies, and new security interdependencies within and between states. The analysis presented in this book will inform ongoing constitutional debates in the UK and the study of other secessionist movements around the world. Security in a Small Nation is essential reading for any follower of UK and Scottish politics, and those with an interest in security and nationhood on a global scale.