Philippe Bourbeau

Moving Forward Together: Logics of the Securitisation Process

In its current configuration, the literature on securitisation – the process of integrating an issue into a security framework that emphasises policing and defence – relies mainly on two logics: the logic of exception and the logic of routine. For some scholars, these two approaches to the study of securitisation frame a battleground on which a conflict among various structural, critical, cultural and sociological standpoints is waged. Although many graduate students cut their theoretical teeth on these debates, little has been gained thus far in the battle for possession of the field. By questioning the literature’s underlying understanding of these two logics as opposing and competing, I pursue two aims in this article. First, I seek to bolster current research on the securitisation process by moving the conversation away from its current analytical stalemate. I caution scholars against overdrawing distinctions between the two logics, for it is not clear that they are mutually exclusive. Second, I seek to recognise and harness the strengths of both logics, and to identify the fruitful theoretical ‘bricks’ each framework contributes to our understanding of securitisation. I illustrate the preceding set of arguments through an analysis of the social construction of migration as a security threat in France since the end of the Cold War.

Security, resilience and desecuritization: multidirectional moves and dynamics

In its current configuration, Security Studies tends to analyse the relationship between security, resilience and non-security politics in cases where the issue of concern has been securitized, when some issue already has the status function and label of a security issue. The literature consistently frames desecuritization and resilience as processes that take place after an issue has been securitized. The overarching objective of this article is to tell a different sociopolitical story of the connections between desecuritization, resilience and securitization. In order to do this, we present a triangular model of dual relationships among security, resilience and non-security politics. By doing so, we propose a theorization of the relations among these concepts that takes into account not only instances in which desecuritization moves and resiliencization moves follow security, but also instances in which desecuritization and resilience arise before security – when securitization is still brewing. Empirical vignettes are employed throughout our discussion to illustrate key points of our argument.

Resilience, resistance, infrapolitics and enmeshment

A great deal has been written in the International Relations literature about the role of resilience in our social world. One of the central debates in the scholarship concerns the relationship between resilience and resistance, which several scholars consider to be one of mutual exclusivity. For many theorists, an individual or a society can either be resilient or resistant, but not both. In this article, we argue that this understanding of the resilience–resistance connection suffers from three interrelated problems: it treats resilience and resistance as binary concepts rather than processes; it presents a simplistic conception of resilient subjects as apolitical subjects; and it eschews the ‘transformability’ aspect of resilience. In a bid to resolve these issues, the article advocates for the usefulness of a relational approach to the processes of resilience and resistance, and suggests an approach that understands resilience and resistance as engaged in mutual assistance rather than mutual exclusion. The case of the Palestinian national liberation movement illustrates our set of arguments.

Migration, Resilience and Security: Responses to New Inflows of Asylum Seekers and Migrants

The ubiquity of resilience—the process of patterned adjustments adopted by a society or an individual in the face of endogenous or exogenous shocks—across the broad social sciences spectrum is undisputable. Yet, migration scholars have been relatively absent from this vibrant discussion. The present article suggests a theorisation of the link between migration, resilience and security by examining ways in which resilience precedes a socially constructed understanding of international migration as a security issue. The article explores how the surge in worldwide refugee numbers and associated mass migration phenomena were not only interpreted as a shock in post-Cold War France, but also instrumentalised by dominant discourses to underscore the necessity of adopting a particular pattern of adjustments to uphold the status quo against changes provoked by these migratory events. The social construction of refugee movements and mass migration as a significant disturbance requiring France to opt for a resilient strategy has led, ultimately, to the securitisation of migration. In a broader sense, the article presents a new lens through which to analyse situations and conditions in which resilience has led to and induced the securitisation of migration.

Handbook on Migration and Security

is Handbook provides a state-of-the-art analysis of the critically important links between migration and security in a globalising world, and presents original contributions suggesting innovative and emerging frontiers in the study of the securitization of migration. Experts from di erent elds re ect on their respective conceptualisations of the migration-security nexus, and consider how an interdisciplinary and multifaceted dialogue can stimulate and enrich our understanding of the securitisation of migration in the contemporary world.

International relations: Celebrating eclectic dynamism in security studies

While security is hardly discussed in Philosophy (as Jonathan Herington, this volume, points out) and while theories of security are politely neglected in Law (as Wouter Werner, this volume, shows), security is the preeminent concept in International Relations. Courses on security studies are taught in almost all undergraduate/graduate programs in International Relations around the globe. There is at least one security specialist (and often, many more) in almost all departments of Political Science and International Studies in North America, Europe and Asia. Security is the primary focus of no less than four major journals in the field, including International Security, Security Dialogue, Journal of Conflict Resolution, and Security Studies, and this list is presently expanding, with the newly created Critical Studies on Security (2013), the European Journal of International Security (2016), and the Journal of Global Security (2016). In the top twelve journals in International Relations according to the 2012 Thompson Reuters Citation Journal Report, four are security-related journals. In short, security studies is a massive field of research in International Relations.