1. Introduction
1.2 Theoretical framework of the study
The present research strongly relies on its theoretical framework and aims to contribute to it, which means that it needs to be presented in considerable detail. Chapter 2 will comprehensively cover this.
The discussion here will be limited to reasoning why securitisation has been chosen as the framework and what this study can add to the discussion.
The introduction of the securitisation framework coincides with the rise of wider security during the 1990s, and it has influenced a great deal of the ensuing security theory. In the framework, security is defined as the construct of an inter-subjective process between a speaker, an audience and the object of securitisation. The process is motivated by the claimed presence of an existential threat, which justifies the use of extreme measures to address it. This moves the issue into the sector of security. The legitimacy of the transformation is dependent on all three actors in the equation, meaning that securitisation cannot occur individually without an acceptance by the audience.
From the point of view of this research, the major benefit of securitisation is its focus on security as a process, which allows the consideration of how issues become immersed into security discourse and merged into security sector. By explicating the roles of the subjects involved, it gives a clear frame of reference to guide the analysis. It thus becomes possible to trace their strategic commitments, interactions and perspectives, which may differ from one another. At the same time, the framework takes into account the context in which the process takes place, thus linking and adapting it to some extent to particular societal and political cases. In addition, as it focuses on the process rather than merely the end result, securitisation makes it possible to analyse unexpected outcomes such as unsuccessful or unfinished securitisations.
9
Thierry Balzacq17 has outlined a detailed framework for the analysis of securitisation. His interpretation traces the outcomes of the process, but it also enables the identification of crucial factors such as the subjects, power relations, strategies and contexts. Among these, it highlights the emergence of new practices and policies as the consequences of the process. Therefore, it yields a far more comprehensive understanding of the securitisation than merely reporting the degree to which it was successful.
Securitisation is by no means the only theoretical approach to new conceptualisations of security and it has also prompted plausible criticisms. However, this can be a benefit as the criticisms have driven the discussion further and given rise to suggestions for amendments to the framework. As a result, it has already considerably developed from its original form and the idea of revising it further is conceivable.
This is an encouraging setting for this study, which also aims to propose revisions to the network, not to reject or discard it as non-functional.
Among the issues that the present study specifically aims to grapple with is the question of the political consequences of securitisation. The Copenhagen School considered it to have negative effects on policy-making and on the democratic procedure as a whole. Its view was that as issues enter the security sector, they become de-politicised and are moved out of reach of normal democratic decision-making into an opaque sphere of coercive measures. Not only is this harmful for democracy overall, it also does not necessarily lead to the best solutions for dealing with the issue that has been securitised. Environmental decision-making, for instance, is more likely to benefit from procedures that allow a high level of public participation and access that make it possible to take into account a wide range of information and points of view.
The present study, however, takes the perspective of more recent research that has questioned the thoroughly negative interpretation of securitisation and points out that the process has more subtle motivations and consequences. Trombetta and Floyd argue that securitisation can simply be an intensive form of politicisation that emphasises the significance of its object in the discourse rather than moving it beyond the democratic procedure. This may lead to a so-called positive securitisation, which provides an efficient way to deal with a threat – such as an environmental problem – and has the potential to benefit a majority of the population.18 Although these scholars do not reject the possibility of negative securitisations, they propose that the security dynamic may have more variable
17 Balzacq, T.: Enquiries into Methods: A New Framework for Securitization Analysis. In Balzacq, T. (Ed.) Securitization theory : how security problems emerge and dissolve. Routledge, London 2011, 35-36.
18 Floyd, R.: Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach: Conceptualizing Human Security as a Securitizing Move. Human Security Journal Vol. 5 (Winter) 2007, 44-45; Trombetta, M. J.: Rethinking the Securitization of the Environment: Old Beliefs, New Insights. In Balzacq, T. (Ed.) Securitization theory: how security problems emerge and dissolve. Routledge, London 2011,142.
10
consequences and therefore merits a more detailed examination. The present study attempts to further examine the possible outcomes of securitisation in the environmental sector.
Another revision to the original framework concerns the conditions for securitisation. In particular, the suitability of extreme measures as a criterion for securitisation has been challenged. Oels uses climate change as an example of an issue that does not easily give rise to extreme measures in the military sense, yet has still been the object of several securitising moves. Relying on the Foucauldian governmentality framework, Oels argues that instead of the traditional invocation of existential threat and measures to counter it, climate change has been securitised through a discourse on risk and its mitigation.19
This brings in the so-called riskification approach, originally introduced by Corry, which makes a distinction between the logic of securitisation and that of risk. Recognising the increasing prevalence of risk-speech in association with and sometimes in place of security, it posits that this is not an addition or an amendment to securitisation, but a different process altogether. Risks are different from threats in that they are indirect and therefore managed rather than defended against. This is also reflected in the consequences of the process. Riskification does not necessarily lead to secretive politics of exception but can, according to Corry, increase public discussion and openness as the nature and severity of risks is being determined.20
Riskification in effect provides an alternative for securitisation, arguing that it is not imperative to fit all security-related processes within the bounds of the security sector itself. Instead of attempting to change the logic of securitisation to fit new forms of security-speech, it sketches out a separate logic, thereby eliminating the need for some of the proposed revisions to securitisation. On the other hand, it presents new questions regarding the relationship between securitisation and riskification. While the present study is primarily built on the securitisation framework, it will aim to take these considerations into account and see how they play out in the Western Balkans’ case.
The arguments for revisions as well as alternatives to securitisation shift the attention from a specific speech act to so-called technologies of security, meaning the discourses and practices through which security is constructed and implemented. By examining these, it is possible to find alternative and less rigid criteria to enable looking beyond extreme measures and thus provide a fruitful way to examine and understand environmental securitisation and the wider concept of security. The present study will adopt the governmentality approach in the sense that it particularly examines the role of practices and
19 Oels, A. Rendering climate change governable by risk: From probability to contingency. Geoforum 45(1) 2013, 17-29.
20 Corry, O.: Securitisation and ‘Riskification’: Second-order Security and the Politics of Climate Change. Millennium:
Journal of International Studies. 40(2), 2012, 235-258.
11
policies in the securitisation process. This also fits into the previously mentioned analytical framework by Balzacq, which takes into account practices.
The theoretical framework thus consists of several elements and also performs a number of functions in the study. Apart from providing the theoretical context, it also serves as the analytical tool. In addition, it is one of the aspects that the research aims to contribute to. Although this setting can be considered complex, its inter-linkages also strongly aid the advancement of the study.
1.3 Environmental security, international cooperation and Western Balkans in previous