Conceptualising climate‐riskification for analysing climate security

Abstract

This paper seeks to develop climate‐riskification as a new analytical tool that can better address the nuances of climate security and climate risk discourses. The paper complements the riskification framework but moves beyond it in two crucial respects: the new tool substantiates the analytical relevance of this framework; and the paper respond to two common criticisms of the framework. First, climate change may not be articulated based on a security risk perspective at the expense of a security threat given that the logics of risk and threat do intersect. Second, the riskification of climate change may be counterproductive. The paper argues that the climate‐riskification tool can help researchers working on climate security to better understand the topic and the role of interstate institutions in the climate security debate. It briefly examines formal debates on climate and security in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The data generated from this context revealed that climate‐riskification has occurred in the UNSC, indicating the reality of climate‐related security risks – a motivation for proponents of climate security to continue riskifying moves whenever this topic is debated again. Future researchers might want to empirically examine the climate‐riskification tool using relevant interstate institutions as case studies.

Understanding variation in national climate change adaptation: Securitization in focus

“…Diez et al (2016) emphasize that securitization is taking place on climate change, but the exact form and character, some based on threat-oriented logics, others based on risk-oriented logics, differs across regions and nations. Odeyemi (2021) shows that climate change, especially at international levels, has been largely but not totally treated as a 'risk' more than a 'threat'.…”

“…The purpose of policy action in this perspective, ‘is no longer to stop threats but to “filter” the really bad threats away’ (Rasmussen, 2006: 109). Empirical focus then turns to discourses, practices and policies focused on management and even societal engineering (Corry, 2012; Hardy and Maguire, 2016; Odeyemi, 2021), including the adoption of certain policy models, risk management paradigms, whole of government approaches, and the proliferation of risk logics across existing policy fields. Table 1 summarizes each logic.…”