Review of International Studies has seen a debate over the value of security. At its heart this is a debate over ethics: about the extent to which security is a ÔgoodÕ and whether or not security politics produces the kind of world we want. More recent contributions focus on the extent to which security is ÔpositiveÕ or ÔnegativeÕ. However, this paper argues that the existing debate is limited and confusing: key authors use the terms ÔpositiveÕ and ÔnegativeÕ in different and at times contradictory ways. The paper clarifies the roots of the existing debate, and then draws out two different uses of the terms positive and negative: an analytic frame and a normative frame. In response, it proposes a pragmatist frame that synthesises the existing uses, drawing on pragmatism and practice-centred approaches to analyse the value of security in context. The contribution of the paper is thus twofold: it both clarifies the existing debate and suggests a solution. This is key because the debate over the value of security is crucial to thinking about how we want to live.

Understanding the complicated relationship between energy, climate and security is vital both to the study of international relations and to ensure the continued survival of human civilisation in a world increasingly threatened by environmental change. Climate change is largely caused by burning fossil fuels for energy, but while discussions on the climate consider the role of energy, energy security debates largely overlook climate concerns. This article traces the separation between energy and climate through an analysis of the US energy security discourse and policy. It shows that energy security is constructed continually as national security, which enables very particular policy choices and prioritises it above climate concerns. Thus, in many cases, policies undertaken in the name of energy security contribute directly to climate insecurity. The article argues that the failure to consider securing the climate as inherently linked to energy security is not just problematic, but, given global warming, potentially harmful. Consequently, any approach to dealing with climate change has to begin by rethinking energy security and security more broadly, as national (energy) security politics no longer provides security in any meaningful sense.

Energy is becoming more and more important to state survival and economic development, and is increasingly considered an issue of Ônational securityÕ. In 2005, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC)Õs bid for US energy company Unocal was securitised by US elite actors, who called for presidential action on the grounds of Ônational securityÕ. This paper argues that securitisation of energy is problematic, as it impedes cooperation and encourages strategic and/or economic competition between states over energy supplies by tying energy to a national security Ôus vs themÕ scenario. Moreover, it limits the energy security debate. This paper will use a securitisation approach to analyse the discourse of the Unocal Affair, together with a smaller complementary case study of US-China cooperation on shale gas to show the possibility of dealing with energy in desecuritised terms. It argues that the current literature on energy ÔsecurityÕ analyses policy in overly simplistic competition/cooperation terms and fails to recognise the policy implications of securitising energy. In contrast, a securitisation approach to energy can explain the (re)presentation of energy as a policy issue and allows an analysis of how using particular discourse makes particular policy possible, while silencing alternative policy options. This has implications for policy-making in this area as energy policy/practice should be desecuritised. Keywords Security, securitisation, energy, US, ChinaWhen, in 2005, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) made a bid to acquire US energy company Unocal, it resulted in widespread political opposition on grounds of Ônational securityÕ, causing CNOOC to withdraw the bid. The incident offered, some said, Ôthe first window into the global fear of resource scarcity and the new geopolitics of energy that will likely accompany itÕ 1 . The growing importance of energy to state survival and continued economic development has in practice put energy policy into the ÔhighÕ politics arena of national security 2 , making the phrase Ôenergy securityÕ commonplace. The prevailing understanding of energy security is inherently state-centric and linked to a national security paradigm 3 , focusing on securing state energy supplies at stable prices. This understanding of energy both impedes cooperation and encourages strategic and/or economic competition between states over energy supplies by tying energy to a national security Ôus vs themÕ scenario, as illustrated by the Unocal affair, which is here considered the first case of energy 1

This article provides an overview of securitization in Chinese climate and energy debates. Scholars have debated the merits as well as the potentially problematic implications of securitization, or framing issues as ‘security,’ since the early 1990s. Early concern focused on the potential problems with linking environmental issues with ‘security,’ and the debate has since also turned specifically to the climate and energy. However, it is only recently that this debate has begun to pay attention to China. Energy and climate concerns are of increasing importance to China: the sheer scale of its energy consumption and air pollution struggles dwarf the challenges seen by other states, and its policy choices play a key role in shaping global climate and energy dynamics. Thus, while securitization in the Chinese context is rarely studied, how China frames its energy and climate policy matters. Both energy and climate are taken increasingly seriously, and security plays an increasing role in debates. This review surveys the increasing popularity of linking security with climate and energy issues both in the academic debate on China and in official discourse, and some of the potential implications. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:301–313. doi: 10.1002/wcc.387 This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > National Climate Change Policy

Security shapes everyday life, but despite a growing literature on everyday security there is no consensus on the meaning of the “everyday.” At the same time, the research methods that dominate the field are designed to study elites and high politics. This paper does two things. First, it brings together and synthesizes the existing literature on everyday security to argue that we should think about the everyday life of security as constituted across three dimensions: space, practice, and affect. Thus, the paper adds conceptual clarity, demonstrating that the everyday life of security is multifaceted and exists in mundane spaces, routine practices, and affective/lived experiences. Second, it works through the methodological implications of a three-dimensional understanding of everyday security. In order to capture all three dimensions and the ways in which they interact, we need to explore different methods. The paper offers one such method, exploring the everyday life of security in contemporary China through a participatory photography project with six ordinary citizens in Beijing. The central contribution of the paper is capturing—conceptually and methodologically—all three dimensions, in order to develop our understanding of the everyday life of security.