Jan Ruzicka

‘Securitization’ revisited: Theory and cases

Securitization theory seeks to explain the politics through which (1) the security character of public problems is established, (2) the social commitments resulting from the collective acceptance that a phenomenon is a threat are fixed and (3) the possibility of a particular policy is created. In the last decade, research on securitization has grown significantly. The aim of this article is to evaluate the achievements of securitization theory. First, its main concepts and premises are critically discussed. This article then proceeds to examine the empirical applications of securitization theory to a broad range of issues, as well as the theoretical implications of these studies. Finally, it discusses the main challenges faced by securitization scholars and puts forward strategies to overcome them. This article develops three inter-related arguments. First, notably thanks to empirical studies, securitization theory has significantly developed beyond its initial focus on the speech act. Second, as a result, the distinctiveness of securitization theory currently lies in its capacity to articulate a specific approach to security – influenced by the speech act – with an ‘analytics of government’, which emphasizes practices and processes. Third, securitization theory faces three types of challenges, related, respectively, to theory, method and methodology. The capacity of scholars to overcome those will strongly influence the extent to which securitization theory will be able to make significant contributions to the debates in Security Studies and International Relations in the years to come.

Trusting relationships in international politics: No need to hedge

Keating, V. C., Ruzicka, J. (2014). Trusting relationships in international politics: No need to hedge. Review of International Studies, 40 (4), 753-770.

Going global: Trust research and international relations

In this review article we explore the growing body of literature on the subject of trust in the field of international relations. We argue that the international level represents a unique challenge for trust research. This is so because some of the most pressing problems facing the world today require the development of trusting relationships internationally. In addition, the international environment is structurally different from domestic or personal relations on which much of the trust literature has focused so far. We identify three main strands of trust literature in international relations – rationalist, social and psychological. We not only note the contributions these have made to understanding the role of trust internationally, but also highlight areas where more research is needed. Particularly, we argue that this includes theorising processes of trust-building, the identification of trusting relationships and the development of a normative case for trust among states.

A transformative social scientist: Karl Deutsch and the discipline of International Relations

This introduction to this Special Issue of International Relations dedicated to Karl Deutsch makes the case that his scholarship was transformative in more ways than is typically recognized in the discipline. Besides being a theoretical and methodological innovator, Deutsch also envisaged that research must have transformative qualities for the future of human relations. The latter in particular deserves attention of International Relations (IR) students because it opens up possibilities for novel empirical and theoretical research of international politics. Deutsch clearly believed that social scientific research must be normatively grounded and serve normative purposes.

A fetish for measurement? Karl Deutsch in the second debate

This article begins by asking why Karl Deutsch never directly intervened in what has come to be known in the field as the second debate. This point of departure is used to outline Deutsch’s views on the purpose of knowledge. It is apparent that Deutsch was unwilling to make the distinction between the traditional and scientific approaches, which stood at the heart of the debate started by Hedley Bull. Deutsch’s position tried to embrace both approaches, because they were necessary in order to answer the big and important questions he asked. Deutsch also rejected the notion that the scientific approach could be devoid of normative concerns. Finally, the article argues that Deutsch keenly adopted methods connected with the scientific approach because he believed they made it possible to spot new patterns which might hold novel answers to the profoundly normative question of humankind’s survival.

The next great hope: The humanitarian approach to nuclear weapons

This article examines the humanitarian approach to nuclear weapons, which has reinvigorated the efforts to achieve their prohibition. It explores the fundamental arguments made by the ‘Humanitarian Initiative’ and their grounding in a relationship between international law and international politics. The analysis draws on the emphasis that classical realists put on the political nature of international problems, primarily shaped by considerations of power. Such approach is useful because the humanitarian approach attempts to address the political problem of nuclear weapons by recourse to claims about morality and through the means of international law, most notably the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, deliberately choosing to circumvent politics and its concern with power. The classical realist perspective suggests that to overlook the power political dimension and to consider the problem of nuclear weapons chiefly as a moral and legal issue is likely to lead to yet another failure in efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament.

Reflections on the 2010 NPT review conference

The 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) gathered amidst a renewed and growing salience of nuclear issues in international politics. This reflected two developments. First, continuing misgivings and worries about the Iranian nuclear programme; second, the increased profile and greater attention that the nuclear agenda enjoys in the policies of the current United States administration. Prior to the Review Conference several nuclear initiatives reached a state of temporary closure. In very quick sequence at the beginning of April 2010, the new US Nuclear Posture Review was completed, the presidents of Russia and the United States signed the New Start treaty, paving the way for a reduction in their strategic nuclear arsenals, and the United States hosted the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC. There can be little doubt that these efforts were influenced by the looming Review Conference and, in turn, had an impact on the conference itself. In his concise report on the 2010 NPT Review Conference in this issue of Medicine, Conflict and Survival, John Loretz presented a modestly optimistic perspective on the proceedings in New York in May 2010. The conference offered enough in its outcomes so that it could appear a mild success from a range of perspectives. Indeed, to the extent that delegates came together with a more or less acute awareness that following the failed 2005 Review Conference another such result was not an option, some measure of success was highly likely. Given the huge number of differing views on what constitutes success, however, is the preoccupation with success a useful way of interpreting the Review Conference’s outcomes? How can a discussion of success be meaningful when a mention of Israel in the final document represented the measure of success for some delegations, the recognition of the smallest