SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Securitization Theory and Securitization of the Political

Güvenlikleştirme Teorisi ve Siyasal Olanın Güvenlikleştirilmesi

Nebi MİŞ
Pages
345–381
Publication Date
2014-07-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It should be noted that given the lack of Turkish-language works on the securitization theory, this article represents a key research in crıtıcally reviewing the discussions on general hypotheses and criticisms of the theory.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study addresses the criticisms directed at the securitization theory which has been developed by the Copenhagen School and is commonly used in explaining contemporary security issues.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The present paper further discusses the main premises of those critics and discusses the state of securitization theory in wider social sciences.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It should be noted that given the lack of Turkish-language works on the securitization theory, this article represents a key research in crıtıcally reviewing the discussions on general hypotheses and criticisms of the theory.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kopenhag Okulu · Güvenlik · Güvenlikleştirme Teorisi

Abstract

This study addresses the criticisms directed at the securitization theory which has been developed by the Copenhagen School and is commonly used in explaining contemporary security issues. The present paper further discusses the main premises of those critics and discusses the state of securitization theory in wider social sciences. It should be noted that given the lack of Turkish-language works on the securitization theory, this article represents a key research in crıtıcally reviewing the discussions on general hypotheses and criticisms of the theory.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Kopenhag Okulu tarafından geliştirilen ve bugün için birçok alandaki güvenlik olgusunu açıklamada kullanılan güvenlikleştirme teorisinin temel varsayımlarını analiz ederek, teoriye yönelik eleştirileri ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Ayrıca çalışma, teori üzerine geliştirilen eleştirilerin temel varsayımlarını mukayese ederek teorinin geldiği son noktayı ortaya koymaya çalışacaktır. Bunun yanında, özellikle teorinin genel varsayımlarını ve eleştirileri en geniş şekilde ortaya koyan herhangi bir çalışmanın Türkçe literatürde olmadığı göz ününe alındığında, Türkiye’deki yapılacak güvenlikleştirme çalışmaları için anahtar bir öneme sahip olacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

MİŞ, N. (2014). Securitization Theory and Securitization of the Political. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 345–381. https://ajindex.com/articles/4837

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. ABRAHAMSEN, Rita (2005) “Blair’s Africa: The Politics of Securitization and Fear”, Alternatives, Cilt: 30, No:1, ss. 55–80.
  2. AÇIKMEŞE, Sinem Akgül (2008), “Kopenhag Okulu Realist Güvenlik Çalışmalarında Aktör, Tehdit ve Politika: Avrupa Güvenliği Üzerine BirDeğerlendirme”, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Avrupa Birliği ve Uluslararası Ekonomik İlişkiler Anabilimdalı, Ankara.
  3. ARADAU, Claudia (2004), ‘Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation’, Journal of International Relations and Development, Cilt: 7, ss.388-413.
  4. ARADAU, Claudia (2006), Limits of security, limits of politics? A response’, Journal of International Relations and Development, Cilt: 9, No:1, ss. 81-90
  5. ARAS, Bülent ve Karakaya Polat, Rabia (2008), “From Conflict to Cooperation: Desecuritization of Turkey’s Relations with Syria and Iran”, Security Dialogue, Cilt: 39, Sayı 5, ss. 475-495
  6. ARCHER, Toby (2009), “Welcome to the Umma: The British State and its Muslim Citizens Since 9/11”, Cooperation and Conflict, Eylül, Cilt: 44, No: 3, ss. 329-347.
  7. ATLANT, Kristian ve Bruusgaard, Kristin Ven (2009), “When Security Speech Acts Misfire: Russia and the Elektron Incident”, Security Dialogue, Haziran, 1, Cilt. 40, ss. 333-353.
  8. AYDIN, Mustafa (2003), “Securitization of History and Geography; Understanding of Security in Turkey”, Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Cilt: 3, No: 2, Mayıs, ss. 163–184.
  9. AYSEVER, R. Levent (2006), “Derrida ve Söz Edimleri Kuramı”, Cogito, No 47-48, Yaz-Güz, s. 287-333.
  10. BALZACQ, Thierry (2005), “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context”, European Journal of International Relations, Cilt: 11, No: 2, Haziran 2005, ss. 171-201.
  11. BALZACQ, Thierry (2008), “The Policy Tools of Securitization: Information Exchange, EU Foreign and Interior Policies”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Cilt 46, No 1,Ocak, s. 75-100.
  12. BIGO, Didier (2002) “Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease”, Alternatives, Sayı: 27: 63-92.
  13. BIGO, Didier, (2000) “When Two Become One: Internal and External Securitisations”, Morten Kelstrup ve Michael C. Williams (der.), International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration, Routledge, Londra, ss. 171-204.
  14. BİLGİN, Pınar, (2003)“Individual and Societal Dimensions of Security”, International Studies Review, Cilt: 5, No: 2,Yaz, ss. 203-222.
  15. BİLGİN, Pınar, (2007) “Making Turkey’s Transformation Possible: C