Matt McDonald

The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security:

‘Critical security studies’ has come to occupy a prominent place within the lexicon of International Relations and security studies over the past two decades. While disagreement exists about the boundaries of this sub-discipline or indeed some of its central commitments, in this article we argue that we can indeed talk about a ‘critical security studies’ project orienting around three central themes. The first is a fundamental critique of traditional (realist) approaches to security; the second is a concern with the politics of security — the question of what security does politically; while the third is with the ethics of security — the question of what progressive practices look like regarding security. We suggest that it is the latter two of these concerns with the politics and ethics of security that ultimately define the ‘critical security studies’ project. Taking the so-called Welsh School and Copenhagen School frameworks as archetypal examples of ‘critical security studies’ (and its limits), in this article we argue that despite its promises, scholarship in this tradition has generally fallen short of providing us with a sophisticated, convincing account of either the politics or the ethics of security. At stake in the failure to provide such an account is the fundamental question of whether we need a ‘critical security studies’ at all.

Human Security and the Construction of Security

Research addressing the concept of security in international relations, or a speci® c approach to security, almost always begins with a re ection on the extent to which ` security’’ has become an essentially contested concept, and that the end of the Cold War has created an opportunity or expectation that security will be broadened, rede® ned or reconstituted. Anyone not of a Realist predisposition interested in the theory and practice of security is usually deeply critical of the increasing gap between Realist theories of international politics and reality, or between Realist ` security’’ and ` security’’ for individuals, the environment or the world. Those of a Realist predisposition have attempted simultaneously to promote the continued relevance of Realism and question the political utility of alternative approaches. In many ways, the security debate is at once both interesting (given the breadth of literature and ideas concerning the core elements of a core international relations principle and practice) and disappointingly predictable, given the inability of much literature in the ® eld to move beyond tired dichotomies. This paper does not propose to proffer solutions to this problem. Rather, it takes a particular analysis, a critique of Human Security, and attempts in part to address whether common analyses of `policy agendas’’ of security, competing for political relevance, tell us much about how security is constructed and conducted. It is argued here that addressing Human Security as a policy agenda, rather than as a looser set of values and norms, does not do justice to the Human Security discourse, nor is it consistent with the way security `works’’ in the international system. This paper focuses on the Human Security discourse of security, a discourse that has received a signi® cant amount of recent attention at both the academic and political level. Human Security has been viewed as a potential response to the growing insecurity of security: a situation wherein the continued prioritisation of military concerns at the state level in traditional discourses and practices of security has served to further individual insecurity and failed to respond adequately to the most pressing threats to individuals throughout the world. An implicit assumption of Human Security is that the elevation of issues of human rights, economic inequality and environmental change, for example, to the realm of security will allow greater priority to these issues, and thus

Constructing Insecurity: Australian Security Discourse and Policy Post-2001

This article explores the construction of security in the contemporary Australian context, arguing that the Australian government has represented, and attempted to construct support for, a statist, exclusionary and militaristic conception or discourse of security. This understanding of security is evident in the government’s representation and response to a range of issues since 2001, including asylum-seekers, terrorism and the war in Iraq. In exploring the processes through which the Australian government has elaborated this discourse and sought to create resonance for it in a domestic context, I argue that there remain important bases not simply for contesting this conception of security, but for acknowledging immanent possibilities for the understanding of security in the Australian context to change in normatively progressive ways. Acknowledging these possibilities is important in identifying the potential for progressive change in Australian security policy, while also shedding light on the role of security in the modern political project.

Deliberation and resecuritization: Australia, asylum-seekers and the normative limits of the Copenhagen School

In the lead-up to the Australian federal election in 2010, both major political parties represented the ‘unauthorised’ arrival of asylum-seekers as a security issue. This article explores the dynamics of this resecuritization of asylum in Australia, suggesting the case has important implications for both the securitization framework and Australias treatment of asylum-seekers. The relationship between securitization and calls for an open debate about asylum-seekers challenges the securitization frameworks normative claims about political debate and deliberation as a progressive development illustrative of desecuritization (the removal of issues from the security agenda). This case also illustrates that without political leadership to engage with the social and cultural context that allows the securitization of asylum to resonate with large segments of the Australian population, the exploitation of this issue for short-term political gain will continue.

How was Howard's war possible? Winning the war of position over Iraq

While a range of accounts have engaged with the important question of why Australia participated in military intervention in Iraq, few analyses have addressed the crucial question of how this participation was possible. Employing critical constructivist insights regarding security as a site of contestation and negotiation, this article focuses on the ways in which the Howard Government was able to legitimise Australian involvement in war in Iraq without a significant loss of political legitimacy. We argue that Howard was able to ‘win’ the ‘war of position’ over Iraq through persuasively linking intervention to resonant Australian values, and through marginalising alternatives to war and the actors articulating them.

Securing international society: Towards an English School discourse of security

English School approaches to international politics, which focus on the idea of an international society of states bound together by shared rules and norms, have not paid significant explicit attention to the study of security in international relations. This is curious given the centrality of security to the study of world politics and the recent resurgence of English School scholarship in general. This article attempts to redress this gap by locating and explicating an English School discourse of security. We argue here that there is indeed an English School discourse of security, although an important internal distinction exists here between pluralist and solidarist accounts, which focus on questions of order and justice in international society respectively. In making this argument, we also seek to explore the extent to which emerging solidarist accounts of security serve to redress the insecurity of security in international relations: the tendency of traditional security praxes to privilege the state in ways that renders individuals insecure.

The Failed Securitization of Climate Change in Australia

Prime Minister Kevin Rudds first National Security Statement in 2008 identified climate change as a ‘fundamental’ threat to national security. Two years later, Rudd was deposed with little to show for climate activism beyond the largely symbolic ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Australians largely accepted Rudds claim that climate change constituted a threat, yet relatively mainstream climate-policy measures were subjected to significant, and ultimately effective, political opposition. This has important implications for climate politics in Australia. This paper, however, focuses on implications for the securitization framework. Specifically, the author argues that this case raises serious questions about the capacity of the framework to account for the mobilising power of security or the dynamics of its construction.

Australian Foreign Policy under the Abbott Government: Foreign Policy as Domestic Politics?

While foreign policy featured prominently on the Australian political agenda in late 2014, the manner of Australias engagement with the world challenges the idea of a ‘pivot’ from domestic politics to foreign policy. In particular, the government demonstrated a tendency to prioritise domestic political considerations, in particular public opinion, in its dealings with the outside world. This was evident across a range of issue areas: from the ‘internationalist’ agenda of asylum, climate change and aid to more traditional concerns such as bilateral relations with Indonesia and international security. This article explores these dynamics and asks what implications this has for both Australian foreign policy and theoretical accounts of the role and desirability of public engagement with foreign policy in international relations thought.

Foreign and Defence Policy on Australia's Political Agenda, 1962-2012

This paper explores the content of the Australian foreign and defence policy agenda over the past 50 years, finding evidence of both continuity and change. Australian political leaders have generally committed to cooperation with international institutions, wealth creation through engagement with Asian economies in particular, and security through the American alliance. In this period, changes in foreign policy approach either concerned marginal issues or were driven significantly by exogenous factors: by changes in the international environment or by global events that propelled a reconsideration of Australian foreign and defence policy interests. However, periods of policy change and significant public attention in – particular around the Vietnam and Iraq wars – illustrate the continued relevance of political choices and agency. Both conflicts and debates around them ushered in changing foreign and defence policy considerations, and both raised fundamental questions about Australian security and independence in the context of the American alliance.

Ethics and exclusion: representations of sovereignty in Australia’s approach to asylum-seekers

From 2001, the Australian government has justified a hard-line approach to asylum-seekers on the basis of the need to preserve its sovereignty. This article critically evaluates this justification, arguing that the conception of sovereignty as the ‘right to exclude’ involves a denial of responsibility to the most vulnerable in global politics. We particularly focus here on the ways in which the Australian government has attempted to create support for this conception of sovereignty and ethical responsibility at the domestic level, through marginalising alternative voices and emphasising the ‘otherness’ of asylum-seekers and refugees. We conclude by suggesting what this might mean for the treatment of asylum-seekers in global politics and for statist approaches to global ethics.