Analysing desecuritisations: prospects and problems for Israeli–Palestinian reconciliation

Desecuritising cybersecurity: towards a societal approach

“…They also provided the political context and ordering ideas and concepts that fed into the emergence of social media networks in the mid-2000s and the recent growth of system-wide cyberattacks, such as Wannacry. But while much of the academic literature on securitisation describes the process by which issues become securitised, the reverse process, where issues are desecuritised, is undertheorized (Coskun 2008) and has not yet been substantively applied to cybersecurity debates and issues. Articulated most clearly by Buzan and Waever (2003, 489), desecuritisation is 'a process in which a political community downgrades or ceases to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent object and reduces or stops calling for exceptional measures to deal with the threat'.…”

Theories, methods and practices – a longitudinal spatial analysis of the (de)securitization of the insurgency threat in Russia

“…Whilst most of the initial discussion centered on establishing, negotiating and fixing the exact characteristics and principles of securitization and its relationship with political and security contexts, the process in reverse -de-securitization -did not receive much attention (Coskun, 2008: 393). Recently, however, scholars have begun to delve more deeply into what it means to desecuritize an issue or ask what a desecuritised issue would look like (see Åtland, 2008;Aradau, 2004;Aras and Polat 2008;Behnke, 2006;Cui and Li, 2011;Hansen, 2012;Kundsen, 2001;Roe, 2004;Waever, 1995, Oelsner, 2005Coskun, 2008, Salter, 2008, Klinke and Perombelon 2015. As Hansen has suggested, however, the focus was on the philosophical, drawing on a wide range of figures such as Schmitt, Habermas, Foucault, Derrida, and Arendt, in order to shed light on what constitutes the nature of politics and security within the (de)securitization model (Hansen, 2012: 527).…”

“…The Copenhagen School model outlines that for an issue to be repositioned from the status of non-politicized or politicized to that of securitized requires an authorized and responsible actor to name it as an existential security threat to a particular referent object, and for this ‘securitizing move’ to be accepted by the relevant audience of this referent object, the endorsing of extraordinary measures to address it. In turn, desecuritizations are processes ‘in which a political community downgrades or ceases to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent object, and reduces or stops calling for exceptional measures to deal with the threat’ (Buzan and Wæver, cited in Coskun, 2008: 405). As such, the key aim of securitization theory is to identify what, when, where and how an issue is moved from being part of the normal environment of politics to becoming a threat to security and beyond the scope of normal politics – and vice versa (desecuritization).…”

“…Most of the current literature that draws on the Copenhagen school's model of de-securitization (Buzan et al, 1998;Buzan and Waever, 2003;CASE Collective, 2006;Waever, 1995Waever, , 1999Waever, , 2000Waever, , 2011 has focused primarily on the theoretical level, examining either the initial stages and instances of a securitization (Abrahamsen 2005;Buzan, 2006;Elbe, 2006Morozov 2002. More recently, a literature has emerged considering the subsequent de-securitization (Aras and Polat 2008;Åtland, 2008;Oelsner, 2005;Coskun, 2008, Aradau, 2004Behnke, 2006;Huysmans, 1998;Taureck 2006). However, within this research agenda, little empirical work has been done on cases in which the initial securitization occurred across multiple referent objects.…”

“…The majority of the prevailing literature that draws on the Copenhagen School’s model of desecuritization (Buzan et al, 1998; Buzan and Wæver, 2003; c.a.s.e Collective, 2006; Wæver, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2011) is focused primarily on the theoretical level, examining either the initial or the final stages of a (de)securitization (Abrahamsen, 2005; Buzan, 2006; Elbe, 2006; Morozov, 2002; Aras and Polat, 2008; Åtland, 2008; Oelsner, 2005; Coskun, 2008; Aradau, 2004, 2006; Behnke, 2006; Huysmans, 1998; Taureck, 2006). As a result, little empirical work has been conducted on the way in which securitizations, initially constructed across multiple spatially bounded referent objects, subsequently evolved over the full life cycle of (de)securitization processes and the political effect this has had on security politics.…”