Putting security governance to the test: conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges

Ehrhart, Hans-Georg; Hegemann, Hendrik; Kahl, Martin

doi:10.1080/09662839.2013.851676

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Webber et al see security governance as coordinated management and regulation of issues by multiple and separate authorities, the interventions of both public and private actors (depending upon the issue), formal and informal arrangements, in turn structured by discourse and norms, and purposefully directed toward particular policy outcomes. (Ehrhart, Hegemann, and Kahl 2014, 120) According to Kersbergen and van Waarden, security governance is the pluricentric coordination in which national governments are one central, but not necessarily the only actor; a combination of formal and informal structures among interdependent but autonomous actors operating beyond formal hierarchies; and a tendency toward cooperative bottom-up implementation rather than top-down command and control (cited in Ehrhart, Hegemann, and Kahl 2014).…”

Section: Security Governance: the Conceptual Contoursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nigeria’s Security Governance Dilemmas During the Covid-19 Crisis

Okolie-Osemene

2021

Politikon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of the coronavirus pandemic marked a watershed in Nigeria's socio-economic and political milieu, as it created panic in states. Security governance is one of the ingredients of peace and stability in society, but problems sometimes emanate from law enforcement lapses. This paper examined Nigeria's security governance dilemmas during the lockdown enforcement aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19 and highlighted the key lessons from the government's approach to security governance during the period. Data are gathered through in-depth interviews, media reports and secondary sources. The qualitative paper combined non-killing theory and social contract theory. There were looting of shops, robbery, and killing by security forces, in Lagos, Warri, Aba, Umuahia and other cities during the lockdown owing to the problem of footprint/ access. The findings revealed that, despite surveillance efforts, security governance was undermined by the activities of idle youths, non-state armed groups, and unprofessionalism of security forces. While there was a remarkable decrease in crimes compared with the pre-COVID-19 period, the lockdown did not deter troublemakers from engaging in violent acts, such as armed robbery, police violence, and kidnapping. Adequate palliatives should be provided first at high-risk areas during future lockdowns to prevent security threats.

show abstract

Section: Security Governance: the Conceptual Contoursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nigeria’s Security Governance Dilemmas During the Covid-19 Crisis

Okolie-Osemene

2021

Politikon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Norm convergence process is the product of the work of stakeholders of security governance on multiple levels (national, sub-regional, regional, trans-regional and interregional) in improving coordination to cope with or overcome issues of global security agenda (Kirchner and Dominguez, 2014). In explaining to what extent interregionalism establishes security governance that in turn reframes security cooperation requires one to analyze how actors at national, regional, cross-regional and global levels shape the processes that supplement identity-building process of regionalism through the creation of norm convergence across regions The latter's activities include building consensus on the nature and sources of security problems, formulating plans of actions and policies to ameliorate security problems, engaging in actual management of these problems, and evaluation of the performance of security practitioners (Afoaku, 2012;Ehrhart, Hegemann and Kahl, 2014;He, 2019).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Expectations and Limitations of ASEAN-EU Counter-Terrorism Cooperation

Wibisono

Kusumasomantri

2020

J. ASEAN Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines the inter-regional security cooperation between ASEAN and the EU with a specific focus on counterterrorism. The research methods are based on a comparison of regional counterterrorism governance between the two regions and a close reading of Plan of Actions for the enhancement of ASEAN-EU relations documents from 2007 to 2018. The results show that CT cooperation is about facilitating a more comprehensive security governance cooperation where European standards and experience are transferred to Southeast Asia for purposes of regional security and diplomatic relations. In addition, this research also shows that EU-ASEAN CT cooperation has not been geared specifically to combat radicalism, or as part of a Counter Violent Extremism program; rather, the inter-regional cooperation has mainly focused on building a common normative framework in responding to terrorism within the corridor of democracy and preempting the terrorist networks from exploiting connectivity networks. Finally, implementation of security and political cooperation between the EU and ASEAN tend to rely on the existing extra-regional dialogue fora within ASEAN as well as direct engagement between the EU and third parties comprising each of the ASEAN states.

show abstract

“…1 The concept and practice of security governance now increasingly involve the coordinated management and regulation of both traditional and non-traditional security issues by public and private authorities through formal and informal mechanisms (Webber et al 2004 : 4). The evolution of this approach to security governance has been well documented, with important conceptual work by scholars in Europe that analyze the practices in the European Union (EU) and the transatlantic area, where the diffusion of power among different actors is most visible (Christou et al 2010 ; Ehrhart et al 2014 ; Krahmann 2005 ; Sperling and Webber 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Security Governance in East Asia and China’s Response to COVID-19

Caballero-Anthony

Gong

2021

Fudan J. Hum. Soc. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A non-state centric approach challenged the concept of security governance in response to a changed security environment, bringing fragmentation of authority and heterarchical structures into the framework. The existing studies on this approach are largely contextualized from the European experience and developments in its security architecture. This leads to the questions as to whether and how non-state centric security governance occurs in other regions. This article contributes to the literature by studying security governance in East Asia, where the state is a dominant feature in security governance, and through the lens of non-traditional security, with China’s COVID-19 response as a case study. In this particular case, we find that security governance that opens spaces for greater involvement of actors beyond the state could happen, albeit in a more circumscribed manner and subject of certain conditions. We identify three conditions that catalyze the opening of governance spaces: when the capacity of the state is stretched to the limits, when the legitimacy of the government is under pressure, and when there is trust between the government and other actors.

show abstract

Putting security governance to the test: conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Nigeria’s Security Governance Dilemmas During the Covid-19 Crisis

Nigeria’s Security Governance Dilemmas During the Covid-19 Crisis

Assessing the Expectations and Limitations of ASEAN-EU Counter-Terrorism Cooperation

Security Governance in East Asia and China’s Response to COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About