Threat and Risk: What Is the Difference and Why Does It Matter?

Strachan-Morris, David

doi:10.1080/02684527.2012.661641

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This can aid in understanding if Nepal’s response to insecurities stemming from India can be deemed as hedging or balancing. Drawing on the work of Strachan-Morris (2012), threat is defined in terms of capability and intent whereas risk considers possibility and harm. If an actor has the capability and conveys their intent, there is a high likelihood that the security referent will be in danger.…”

Section: Nepal’s Hedging Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysing Nepal’s Foreign Policy: A Hedging Perspective

Mainali¹

2022

Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wary of their significant dependence on India, Nepal has pursued a policy of hedging in order to mitigate potential harm. The harmful consequences of this dependence were on display in 2015 when a blockade along the southern border with India resulted in massive economic losses for Nepal at a time when the nation was recovering from an earthquake. To insure themselves against a similar fate in the future, Nepal has chosen to hedge by pursuing closer relations with China. This article analyses and outlines how Nepal has deployed this hedging strategy. It argues that Nepal’s relations with China, albeit improved, is not enough as India still retains a monopoly on Nepal’s economy. The increasingly hostile and polarised nature of Sino-Indian relations also means that hedging is not a sustainable policy, and if the rivalry between the regional powers worsen, Nepal may be forced to pick a side.

show abstract

Section: Nepal’s Hedging Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysing Nepal’s Foreign Policy: A Hedging Perspective

Mainali¹

2022

Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I understand risk as a function of the likelihood that a threat group will engage in a specific action and that structural vulnerabilities will deteriorate and of potential consequences. 27 I shall return to the components of threat and risk further below. I draw on Meyer, De Franco and Otto's understanding that a warning should, as a minimum, include a knowledge claim about future harm.…”

Section: Performance Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This article draws on a distinction between threats and risks as explored in depth by David Strachan-Morris. 37 This offers helpful guidance when discussing performance expectations for threat and risk assessments and for an integration of risk perceptions into conceptualisations of surprise. According to Strachan-Morris, threats can be assessed by looking in equal parts at the capability and intent of the group in question.…”

Section: Unpacking Threats and Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

How surprising was ISIS’ rise to power for the German intelligence community? Reconstructing estimates of likelihood prior to the fall of Mosul

Michaels¹

2021

Intelligence and National Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term first appeared in police public order manuals around 2001. Strachan-Morris (2012: 172) has defined ‘threat’ as a function of capability and intent. An individual or group with the capability and intent to cause ‘trouble’ would be quite reasonably considered a ‘threat’ by most public order commanders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘It’s on my head’: Risk and accountability in public order policing

Leach

2021

The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heavy policing remains ‘a chronic feature of public order operations’ (Waddington PAJ (1994) Liberty and Order: Public Order Policing in a Capital City. London: UCL Press), both in the form of officer numbers and in the proportionality of tactics employed. This paper argues that at the heart of this lies the assessment of threat and risk and how police commanders perceive, predict and manage the potential for disorder. It reports on the findings of a mixed-methods study, combining data from observations of three separate public order events, with in-depth interviews of seven high-level, police public order commanders from five different UK police forces. Analysis suggests that commanders construe ‘risk’ in very broad terms, seeking to mitigate not only physical harm but also abstract consequences such as reputational damage and loss of public confidence. Structured models central to the task of threat and risk assessment give the appearance of a quantitative and objective process. However, the actual appraisal of threat and risk, both before and during public order operations, is almost entirely heuristic. Furthermore, the analysis suggests commanders’ decision-making is acutely affected by the pressure of accountability. It is argued that at a tacit level, their threat and risk assessments reflect this and a direct consequence is the deployment of additional police resources. At a time when the police service is under intense pressure to do more with less, this paper discusses how refining the assessment of threat and risk may prove to be a critical factor in the delivery of cost effective and proportionate public order policing.

show abstract

Threat and Risk: What Is the Difference and Why Does It Matter?

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Analysing Nepal’s Foreign Policy: A Hedging Perspective

Analysing Nepal’s Foreign Policy: A Hedging Perspective

How surprising was ISIS’ rise to power for the German intelligence community? Reconstructing estimates of likelihood prior to the fall of Mosul

‘It’s on my head’: Risk and accountability in public order policing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About