Welche Macht darf es denn Sein? Tracing ‘Power’ in German Foreign Policy Discourse

The relationship between ‘Germany’ and ‘power’ remains a sensitive issue. While observers tend to agree that Germany has regained the status of the most powerful country in Europe, there is debate whether that is to be welcomed or whether that is a problem. Underpinning this debate are views, both within Germany and amongst its neighbours, regarding the kind of power Germany has, or should (not) have. Against this backdrop, the article reviews the dominant role conceptions used in the expert discourse on German foreign policy since the Cold War that depict Germany as a particular type of ‘power’. Specifically, we sketch the evolution of three prominent conceptions (constrained power, civilian power, hegemonic power) and the recent emergence of a new one (shaping power). The article discusses how these labels have emerged to give meaning to Germany’s position in international relations, points to their normative and political function, and to the limited ability of such role images to tell us much about how Germany actually exercises power

Securitization, Power, Intertextuality:Discourse Theory and the Translations of Organized Crime

While a range of recent accounts have suggested developing a more contextualist conceptualization of securitization theory, few analyses have actually provided detailed operationalizations of the interplay of language, power and context in securitizations. By suggesting and specifying a way of analysing securitizing moves in relation to intertextual linkages with popular culture, this article examines such interplay in processes of securitization. In doing so, the article not only suggests a contextualist operationalization of securitization theory but also hopes to contribute to studies on discourse, intertextuality and pop culture in international relations more generally

Security as Translation:Threats, Discourse, and the Politics of Localisation

This article aims at enhancing our understanding of how collective interpretations of threats, stabilised and temporarily fixed in names, travel across different local discourse communities. I contend that globally accepted names result from gradual cross-cultural processes of localisation. Specifically, I argue that the discursive dynamics of elusiveness, compatibility and adaptation suggest a framework of analysis for how collective interpretations or names travel