Beyond The Evolution of International Security Studies?

Abstract

This article provides a reply to the other contributions to this special section of Security Dialogue on The Evolution of International Security Studies. Our response cuts across the special section as a whole, focusing on the following questions: What does it mean to take a critical stance towards the history of international security studies? Does micro-sociology provide the way forward? How do the main analytical distinctions laid out in The Evolution of International Security Studies work? And, what are the challenges and suggestions for a more thorough study of traditionalism?Keywords international security studies I N WRITING THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, our ambition was to heed the call made by Nye & Lynn-Jones (1988) for an intellectual history of international security studies, and the contributions in this special issue of Security Dialogue give us confidence that we have at least provided a good foundation for further discussion. Our goal was never to write the only book that could be written, so we welcome what we see as a series of suggestions for how subsequent volumes might further explore the trajectory of international security studies. Our response cuts across the special section as a whole in terms of the following questions: What does it mean to take a critical stance towards the history of international security studies? Would micro-sociology provide the way forward? How do the main analytical distinctions -that is, the four questions and the five driving forces -laid out in The Evolution of International Security Studies work? And, what are the challenges for a more thorough study of traditionalism?Special Section on The evoluTion of inTernaTional SecuriTy STudieS

Countering cybercrimes as the strategy of enhancing sustainable digital economy in Nigeria

“…Securitisation theory is adopted to explain the phenomenon of cybercrimes and its impediments to digital economic growth globally and in Nigeria. The theory has its root in the security debates by the likes of Buzan (1983), Buzan and Hansen (2009) and Buzan and Schouenborg (2018). The Copenhagen School which was strengthened by Acharya and Buzan (2019) and his disciples established a new paradigm that critically sought a departure from the traditional strategies of perceiving and analysing security debates nationally and internationally.…”

Is Bhasan Char Island, Noakhali district in Bangladesh a sustainable place for the relocated Rohingya displaced people? An empirical study

“…In the context of sustainable living, security does not mean the military capability of a state but refers to the non-traditional security issue that ensures human potential and development (Srikanth 2014 ). The writing of Buzan and Hansen widened the concept of security by adding five sectors of security–military, regime, societal, environmental, and economic security–to cover all concerning aspects of human security (Buzan and Hansen 2010 ). However, the addition of human security to the lexicon of security concept by the UNDP Human Development Report grounded the two fundamental issues–freedom from fear and want–as the core issues of security (UNDP 2005 ).…”

El Estado Islámico, el salafismo y la securitización de la religión

“…Los conceptos tradicionales de las Relaciones Internacionales se mostraban insuficientes para comprender esta realidad, por lo que se desarrollaron nuevas posturas para entender las guerras y los conflictos. El concepto de seguridad se enfrentó a nuevos debates, dando lugar a un proceso de "ampliación" y "profundización" (Buzan y Hansen, 2010;Saleh, 2010). De este modo, gracias al trabajo de la Escuela de Copenhague 1 de estudios sobre seguridad, aparecieron nuevas concepciones teóricas como los sectores de la seguridad 2 , la seguridad societal y la securitización, que desafiaron la concepción realista de la seguridad, caracterizada por su enfoque estadocéntrico y militarista.…”