Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Chapter 1 Introduction: Why positive security? -- Chapter 2 Positive security: Encounters as a multiactor security approach -- Chapter 3 Human security, gender security, and positive security: Sharing perspectives from the North -- Chapter 4 Encounters and positive security: Radical human security as a research agenda -- Chapter 5 Civilian agency, identity, and the power to define security -- Chapter 6 Power and positive security: Emancipatory security through Arendt and Butler -- Chapter 7 Social orders and positive security: Greece-Turkey relations as a failed pursuit of positive security -- Chapter 8 Positive, multiactor security and the comprehensive approach -- Chapter 9 Conclusion: Looking forward to positive security -- Index.

Today many European citizens and many migrants into Europe live under fear and anxiety. Existing political structures dichotomize the two sets of insecurities and so contribute to perpetuate them. The insecurity of citizens is seen as attainable independent of and despite the insecurity of migrants, rather than as part of a common (shared) human security. In response, this essay presents ideas from human security analysis, as a partner, complement and extension of human rights thinking in relation to migration. It is argued that such an analysis, with concrete practical options, can contribute to the creation of structures through which interdependency of EU citizens' security and that of migrants is recognised and upheld. Section 2 outlines the migration crisis that has been felt in Europe and some reasons behind it. Section 3 considers the responses of securitization of migration and militarization at the EU's southern borders, and of supplementary humanitarianism. We analyse why the EU migration policy system, conceived outside of a conception of common human security, produces negative feedback and is counterproductive. In Section 4 we argue in general terms why human security analysis is a required partner to human rights thinking and practice. Section 5 then concretely suggests how a human security perspective could help to frame, balance and extend human rights analysis and contribute in migration policy and practice. These suggestions include generating legal channels for migration, addressing the conceptual confusions revolving around migration through introducing a more comprehensive concept of 'protection-seeker', developing a European-wide regularisation mechanism, using human security as a meta-legal figure in migration cases, and developing a perspective that combines human rights criteria with enlightened self-interest. Finally, Section 6 discusses the partial reflection of such a perspective in the 2018 Global Compact on Migration.

This paper is closed access until 26 February 2020. ; International Relations (IR) has increasingly paid attention to critical pedagogy. Feminist, post-colonial and poststructuralist IR scholarship, in particular, have long been advancing the discus-sions about how to create a pluralist and democratic classroom where 'the others' of politics can be heard by the students, who can critically reflect upon complex power relations in global poli-tics. Despite its normative position, Critical Security Studies (CSS) has so far refrained from join-ing this pedagogical conversation. Deriving from the literatures of postcolonial and feminist pedagogical practices, it is argued that an IR scholar in the area of CSS can contribute to the pro-duction of a critical political subject in the 'uncomfortable classroom', who reflects on violent practices of security. Three pedagogical methods will be introduced: engaging with the students' lifeworlds, revealing the positionality of security knowledge claims, and opening up the class-room to the choices about how the youth's agency can be performed beyond the classroom. The argument is illustrated through the case of forced migration with specific reference to IR and Pol-itics students' perceptions of Syrian refugees in Turkey. The article advances the discussions in critical IR pedagogy and encourages CSS scholarship to focus on teaching in accordance with its normative position.

In security studies, there is an unquestioned assumption of a linear link between trust and security. However, such an assumption neglects complex identity dynamics that can be involved in trust‐building discourses for engendering security. There needs to be greater examination into what is meant by trust, and upon what, and whom, and how the politics of identity works in social trust building and how states can influence this process. This article contributes to the literature on trust, security, and identity in International Relations (IR) by making a case for a conceptual focus on the formation of particularized distrust towards "the other" as a corollary to trust and security of "the self." It is argued that in the construction of a political community where security is associated with trust, particularized distrust can also be promoted through institutional discourses—strengthening the "trusting we" by constructing "the other" who can challenge social trust and feelings of security associated with it. The argument is illustrated through critically examining a state‐level narrative in Norway in relation to "the other," that is, the immigrant. Through this illustrative example, mutual constitutiveness of trust and distrust in a self/other discursive construction will be shown.

This paper is in closed access until 12 months after publication. ; In security studies, there is an unquestioned assumption of a linear link between trust and security. However, such assumption neglects complex identity dynamics that can be involved in trust-building discourses for engendering security. This article contributes to the literature on trust, security, and identity in International Relations (IR) by making a case for a conceptual focus on the formation of particularized distrust towards "the other" as a corollary to trust and security of "the self". It is argued that in the construction of a political community where security is associated with trust, particularized distrust can also be promoted through institutional discourses – strengthening the "trusting we" by constructing "the other" who can challenge social trust and feelings of security associated with it. The argument is illustrated through critically examining a state level narrative in Norway in relation to "the other", that is, immigrant. Through this illustrative example, mutual constitutiveness of trust and distrust in a self/other discursive construction will be shown.

This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Bilgic, Hoogensen Gjørv G, Wilcock. (2019). Trust, Distrust, and Security: An Untrustworthy Immigrant in a Trusting Community. Political Psychology, 40 (6), 1283-1296, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12613. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. ; In security studies, there is an unquestioned assumption of a linear link between trust and security. However, such an assumption neglects complex identity dynamics that can be involved in trust‐building discourses for engendering security. There needs to be greater examination into what is meant by trust, and upon what, and whom, and how the politics of identity works in social trust building and how states can influence this process. This article contributes to the literature on trust, security, and identity in International Relations (IR) by making a case for a conceptual focus on the formation of particularized distrust towards "the other" as a corollary to trust and security of "the self." It is argued that in the construction of a political community where security is associated with trust, particularized distrust can also be promoted through institutional discourses—strengthening the "trusting we" by constructing "the other" who can challenge social trust and feelings of security associated with it. The argument is illustrated through critically examining a state‐level narrative in Norway in relation to "the other," that is, the immigrant. Through this illustrative example, mutual constitutiveness of trust and distrust in a self/other discursive construction will be shown.

Status matters to all states. For some from the Global South, status ambitions drive foreign policies. International venues like the G20 are perfect tools to pursue such ambitions. How, then, does status drive the foreign policies of the Global South and how does it inform their leadership of the G20? How and why should the Global North engage with such status ambitions?
Status is about one's standing in a social hierarchy and can be understood as a set of shared beliefs about a state. States often communicate their status ambitions through "vanity projects" such as a space programme or become diplomatically very proactive in international forums.
On the one hand, status ambitions can contribute to efforts that strengthen international stability and global governance, such as conflict mediation and humanitarianism. They can also deepen instability in the form of revisionism, regional interventions, and challenges to the rules-based international order.
The year 2023 will see an Indian presidency of the G20. For a country that has long aspired to a seat in global multilateral institutions, India is mobilising the platform - and will continue to do so - to amplify its status ambitions. With India's rise potentially impacting the global balance of power, a careful reading of its status concerns as manifested in its G20 presidency is both valuable and necessary.
At the current conjuncture of a global polycrisis, it is imperative to create conditions conducive to cooperation between large developing countries and the European Union / Germany. Attention to status concerns implies acknowledgement of hierarchies between states and can create the foundations for establishing relations and partnerships on a level playing field.
Seeking status is an important driver of foreign policy in the Global South. Intangible and challenging to identify, status considerations sometimes explain puzzling policy outcomes. They draw attention to the role of the reputational gains that lead states to prioritise certain issues over others. For European decision-makers, attention to status concerns when engaging with the Global South can make for better understanding among partners and help strengthen diplomatic interaction.