What does it mean to securitise the environment - Essay Example

 What Does it Mean to Securitise the Environment? The concept of securitization focuses on the relevant point that the outline the discussion power within the political security nature. However, most proponents argue that the overall potential for discursive approach has a limitation to the fixity imposed on the different security practices. In this paper, the practices that are linked to the exceptional decision of constituent enemies brings into being the ideology of war. Securitization processes are never open to negotiation as they make it hard to explain for further security transformation in terms of discussion and logic. The argument is that the securitization process develops issues triggering a transformation into threats and the understanding of it as security. Evidently, approaches that consider the formation of security aspects in a discursive manner provide new perspectives in analyzing environmental security discourses, as well as their transformative potential. Initially, it provides thorough investigations in the political process, the choice of threats while exploring the reasons why most of them take the consideration of relevant and urgent above others. The strategic focus of the shift from certain threats onto various collectivities, interests, and identities that deserve protection, as well as deployment means (Balzacq, 2010). In addition, environment securitization points at having an awareness of environmental challenges and the relevant roles in the definition and transformation of political communities, their identities, and interests. While the process continues to create new ideas for security, the notion has widely attracting reforms and contribution from the society. The element points out that the securitization process develops an open space for formative and constitutive struggles under “genuinely political” scopes. The political structures face consistent contests and establishments. Environmental securitization triggers the transforming and breaking of rules, which no longer has an acceptable impact. It includes practices linked to antagonistic security logical (Liotta, 2003). First, it depicts the relevance of the new actors who are mostly from the definition of sub-political realms. It means that the environmental sector has a characterization of multiplicity of actors having diverse perspectives as well as different security understandings. The actors are yet to achieve full organization in the concrete forms of settings present as they have a regimented political structure. The environmental concerns promote the development of new institutions as well as the legitimating of security actors. They are not necessarily limited in terms of collectivities. Further, while at the global level, there are minimal attempts towards securitizing the environmental issues for successful outcomes even though they amount in simple politicization. It is worth noting that the environmental sector portrays more clarity as compared to the others using the propensity of dramatic securitizing moves using minimal successful effects on securitization (Webersik, 2010). This includes those leading to the extraordinary measures. It also suggests that the appeal to security triggers another grouping of methods characterizing different security formations. They can be generated into substance by definition. As observed, within environmental sectors, the ‘emergency measures’ take up the design and development of the ordinary policy realms in debates. Having the appeal to security influencing functional areas, there is a link to the state of exception as well as the war logic for progressively challenging its necessity The attention of securitization as understood in the appeals to security coupled with the formation of security agendas, within contexts and from different actors, indicates the presence of reflexive processes. Through the security appeals, there is querying of the securitization practices as well as an understanding of security. This also suggests one of the more complex realities unlike the existing (Liotta, 2003). In this case, security analysis attaches the rhetorical securitization structure through opening it up for various threats. For risk societies, the construction of rules and threats through which security develops remain open to the processes of social transformation and construction. The efforts of applying a traditional understanding on national security to various sectors for social life engage an effect for the progressive explosion of its incongruence. This view outlines how the environmental securitization approach as elaborated is not sufficiently equipped in accounting for the development of security practices. The argument is based on prevention and risk management irrespective of the moments of bringing about the appeals to security. Securitization takes much credit in the conceptualization of power of social discourses. More specifically, from the term ‘security’, in it transforming situations, there are identification of the characteristic of security and the “securities’” of safety (Vries, 2006). This concedes with the attention of the constitutions of enemies and confrontational war logic. This way, the notion, imposes problematic fixities tending to develop historical and sector-specific security understanding as well as the efforts towards legitimizing it. Moreover, through its implications on the opportunities of inscribing one’s enemies in the context, they suggest of a de-securitization policy on many issues. This might leave problematic practice sets unchallenged while associating their impacts with national security while opening up probable measures for governing them. When the security of environments is evoked, it becomes a major consideration in decisions making. For this reason, all attempt towards link security and the environment with the goals to transform security practices falls out of mark. There is the lack of a difference across uttering environmental security while justifying the new duties for the army and evoking it towards the introduction of precautionary measures. The speakers’ intentions remain wildly irrelevant while the consequences for a successful securitization become even more dangerous. The framework availed causes a legitimization of environmental issues in the Security Studies paradigm (Riddell, 2013). In addition, there is a limitation on the potential of such kinds of challenges transform and question the model. The securitization of the environment creates dangerous solutions while allowing the undue inclusion of security claims and threats in powerful and regimented structures. It makes the structures becomes unchangeable. The element of securitization is a way of de-politicizing issues and bringing them above political measures into ordinary procedures. It also depoliticizes and maintains the apolitical nature of security. The static and reductive security understanding is imposed. While considering securitization on a reflexive practice scale, issues face transformation into different security realms while the methods are in opposition of dealing with them and challenging while transforming accounts of the past interests for precautionary approaches (Moran, 2011). The view points at eliminating the measure of “security” even though there is different security logic characterizing the different contexts influencing one another. On the other hand, the practices towards providing it face constant challenges and transformations. The analysis of securitization for the conditions in the application of reflexive modernization in securitization, securitization is considered reflexive (Floyd, 2010). A “rule-altering” process takes up the definition of reflexive securitization through the provision of relevant insights for the transformation in security practices as well as relevant discourses. The contemporary security discourses have a characterization of tension. Contrary to this, the terror war and the approach to dealing with problems like illegal immigration and bird flu, the appeal towards security is an emergency appeal (Deacon, 2004). This is a representation of issues including existential threats as well as calls for the exceptional techniques. Respectively, the prevention language continues to increase importance while the precautionary methods, as well as risk management, evoke progress in dealing with related issues. The security realm is applied as a way of evoking exceptional measures and eschewing them. In addition, it is a way of providing a platform for questioning, contextualizing, and setting limits for the security logic recently dominating International Relations. However, this leaves open opportunity for dealing with methods of making more enemies while avoiding to subsume the security appeals to this logic. All contemporary risks face an unbounded comparison at this point. They affect different parts of the world away from their place of origin while taking generations prior the effects turn visible in any case. Most of them are irreversible. Genetic, chemical and nuclear technologies harbor the potential of bringing destruction mostly that could cause risks to calculi (Curley & Wong, 2008). This way, the construction of control measures and security dominating the social thoughts and political actions in the initial modernity steps are becoming fictitious within the global risk scores. While attempting to prepare for the future through the facilitation of aid of different categories of risk, there are more ideas running out of control. The proliferations in unbounded risk as well as the consciousness for living within risky society’s makes modernity become reflexive. However, environment securitization does not allow for the conceptualization of various aspects of recent security developments in the world. This is especially concerning the appeals to security showing growing interest towards the preventive measures. Even as securitization continues to make relevant points for the outlining of power of discourses as well as the security’s political nature, it is evident that it imposes unnecessary fixities to security as a social practice (Riddell, 2013). In such a case, the label security achieves the specific mindset as well as different sets of chaotic practices linked to the logic of emergency and war. Such practices do not provide an opening for political discussion or negotiation while they make it hard to make an account of all transformations within the security provisions and practices. The issue addressed in the environment is how to adopt broad incorporation of securitization. It is a political act towards defining the components of a threat in an absence of imposing the security fixity of practices associated with securitization. The argument is that, through the securitization process, the issues under environmental concern include threats as well as the general understanding of the security for the provision practices face challenges and drastic transformations. An analysis of the environmental issues securitization and the application of the argument involve the reflexive securitization character. It covers the limitations imposed through the fixation of security practices as outlined through study for securitization peculiarities in issues of identifying the “environmental sectors”. The different reasons imposed justify such choice (Liotta, Kepner, Mouat & Lancaster, 2008). Initially, even though there are various perspectives for the opportunity and meaning of environmental security, securitization for a wide array in environmental issues is a representation of part of the attempts evoking security. It stretches to asking for outstanding and urgent measures as well as challenging the set of practices, which feature security across international politics. Second, the notion devotes efforts towards analyzing the environmental sector peculiarities while this provides an exploration for several challenges dictated through the transformation of environmental problems towards security issues (Floyd, 2010). In the end, environmental cases appear to have an anticipation of broader transformation processes as the emphasis to its prevention goes on to enter the security debate through defining various features to environmental security discourses. Through it, the conclusions reached from analyzing environmental sectors include the relevance past it. The other aspect concerns the probabilities of having to escape the threats through the relationships in the chance that evokes enemies (Page & Redclift, 2002). In the international frontier, Security develops a structured component through the perception of dangers outside the site under consideration. The risk society is instead apparent as permeated through the risks where people choose and cannot extricate. Risk eradicates all protective zones as well as social differentiations in and across the nation-states. This way, risk society, queries the opportunities for approaching security with respect to enemies above the focus on shared threats. The security levels also focus on the inscription by enemies as well as the war logic. Instead, the ‘enemy’ concept has the strongest antithesis towards the security concepts. The enemy stereotypes empower relationships as well as behavioral attack and defense logic, for pro and contra during the initial kill of the question focus on the people (Campolongo, Jönsson & Schoutens, 2012). The trade off here has to base security logic on precaution as well as interdependence in coexistence with securitization. There are considerations of approaches on the grounds of risk management as well as alternatives to securitization while suggesting that they seek to have a domination of the domestic politics coupled with international relations. Away from such interpretations, part of them considers that questioning security practices are requisitioned by security appeals. Leading the environmental threats is the appeal towards security ending up in disputing the security practices based on the evocation of emergencies as well as on the enemies’ inscription. In summary, while clarifying the perspective of need in exploring the securitization features, security narrows down to a given form of speech performance. It develops rhetorical structures while bringing into existence certain sets of practices. An appeal to security develops complications to the existential threats. Security for environments comprises of staging of different issues across politics while lifting them from politics. The security discourse involves issued dramatized and presented through supreme priority issues. Therefore, through tagging a label of security, agents claim the need for treating it through extraordinary grounds. This way, the issue with security agenda broadening is that such a mindset spreads onto issues in which there is a ban. It makes sure that the securitization problems start appearing as the environment is involved. In providing viable accounts for the formation of discursive security issues as well as the process of transformation, securitization implies the need in moving into social change and communicative action. References Balzacq, T. 2010. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. New York: Taylor & Francis. Campolongo, F., Jönsson, H., Schoutens, W. 2012. Quantitative Assessment of Securitisation Deals. New York: Springer. Curley, M., Wong, S. 2008. Security and Migration: The Dynamics of Securitisation. New York: Routledge. Deacon, J. 2004. Global Securitisation and CDOs. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Floyd, R. 2010. Security and the Environment: Securitisation Theory and US Environmental Security Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Liotta, P. H. 2003.The Uncertain Certainty: Human Security, Environmental Change, and the Future Euro-Mediterranean. New York: Lexington Books. Liotta, P. H., Kepner, W. G., Mouat, D. A., Lancaster, J. M. 2008. Environmental Change and Human Security: Recognizing and Acting on Hazard Impacts. New York: Springer. Moran, D. 2011. Climate Change and National Security: A Country-Level Analysis. New York: Georgetown University Press. Page, E., Redclift, M. R. 2002. Human security and the environment: international comparisons. New York: Edward Elgar. Riddell, K. 2013. Islam and the Securitisation of Population Policies: Muslim States and Sustainability. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Vries, d. 2006. Innovations in Securitisation, Yearbook 2006. New York: Kluwer Law International. Webersik, C. 2010. Climate Change and Security: A Gathering Storm of Global Challenges. New York: ABC-CLIO. Read More