Securitization theory and securitization studies

Opposed to the recently fashionable 'moral and ethical' criticism levelled against Ole Wæver's securitization theory this article argues that such criticism fundamentally misconceives the analytical goal of securitization theory, which is namely to offer a tool for practical security analysis. In arguing that being political (critical) on the part of the analyst has no bearing on the type of practical security analysis that can be done using securitization theory, this article proposes that the analytical goal of such criticism and that of securitization theory are incommensurable; in the process rendering obsolete this kind of criticism of securitization theory. By way of reconciling securitization theory with its critics, however, this article takes up Wæver's suggestion of wider securitization studies in which moral and ethical criticism, as well as being political, can play a supplementary role in the analysis of securitization theory

Limits of security, limits of politics? A response

My article, `Security and the Other Scene: Desecuritization And Emancipation' has triggered reactions to the political claims it put forth. The most controversial claim — in the eyes of the critics — was the formulation of the impossibility to think security only analytically, outside any political project. The other main criticism concerned the concept of politics formulated in the article. In my response, I argue first that political decisions are necessary to cut across the `indiscernability of knowledge'. Moreover, security is the political concept par excellence, as it entails questions about the politics that we enact. Second, I expose the closure that Schmitt's concept of the political entails for our possibilities of thinking a different politics