Paul Roe
Department of International Relations/Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy &
International Relations
‘Critical Security Studies’
(Winter Semester, 2017-18)
This course, which is taught at both the PhD and MA levels, is concerned with how the so-called
‘critical turn’ in International Relations has been reflected specifically in thinking about Strategy and Security.
‘Critical Security Studies’ is, in its broadest sense, a collection of approaches all united by a profound dissatisfaction with so-called ‘traditional’ security studies. Critical Security Studies seeks to question, though not always completely do away with, the foundations upon which the dominant state-centrism and military-centrism is built.
This course deals with a number of these approaches: from the ‘conventional’ constructivists, through the ‘Copenhagen’ and ‘Aberystwyth’, or ‘Welsh’, Schools, to more ‘critical’ constructivist positions. In doing so, not only does it seek to illuminate the main theoretical assumptions underpinning each of the various approaches, but also to explore just how they are ‘critical’; that is, in what ways they challenge traditional security studies, and in what ways they compare and contrast with each other. While the course is mainly theoretical in its orientation, much emphasis is also placed on empirical application; how, and to what kind of cases, each of the approaches can be profitably applied.
Teaching Method
For this course, there are no lectures. Instead, students will participate in seminars where they are expected to form their own opinions through ‘critical’ evaluation of the readings. For each seminar, there will be one or two key texts (which are in the course reader). Seminar discussion will be structured around a short presentation of the text(s), in which students will summarise and critically evaluate the readings. Seminar discussion therefore depends on serious preparation: it is crucial that students do all of the reading required and come into the seminar fully prepared to actively take part in the discussion. For the topics discussed, there is not necessarily a right answer. What is important is to focus on the way that people think.
Method of Assessment
Each student will be assessed through a combination of seminar contribution, oral presentation, and written work.
For MA students, the requirement is two literature reviews and one research paper. The literature review is 1,500 words long (plus/minus 10%); the research paper is 4,000 words long (again, plus/minus 10%), and can be, if chosen an extension to one of the prior literature reviews.
For the final grade: 25% is given to each literature review (40%); 50% to the research paper; with the remaining 10% being allotted to seminar attendance and contribution.
For PhD students, the requirement is three in-class, oral presentations, three literatures reviews (as extensions of the oral presentations), and one reflection paper. The literature review is 2,500 words long (plus/minus 10%); the reflection paper is 5,000 words long (again, plus/minus 10%).
For the final grade: 20% is given to each oral presentation and literature review taken as a whole (60%); 30% to the reflection paper; with, again, the remaining 10% being allotted to seminar attendance and contribution.
For MA Students, the First Literature Review is due at the end of week 6; the second at the end of week 10. All other deadlines for assessed work will be established in the first, introductory seminar.
Guidelines for the Literature Review
The purpose of the literature review is essentially two-fold: one, to situate the chosen key text within the wider debate(s); and two, to make a critique of the key text informed by the existing literature.
Any text can be situated in a wider debate: its theoretical/conceptual standpoint and the more specific arguments that derive from that standpoint can only be properly understood when set against other works. Together, these texts collectively constitute a written conversation. Some texts may exemplify a particular debate; others might be read as belonging to several, overlapping written conversations. The literature review thus demands that students not only identify the general context within which the key text can be situated, but are also explicit as to the specific nature of the debate according to which they will structure their critique.
In terms of structure, one or two introductory paragraphs should be devoted to the above task (context and debate). Following on from this, the main body should then put in place a coherent and sustained, critical evaluation of the key text. Some concluding paragraph is also warranted, although the exact content of that paragraph is dependent on the purpose of the critique. The main points of the critical evaluation should derive explicitly from the wider literature. Given the length of the literature review; just 1,500 words (for MAs) it is reasonable to expect that no more than 4- 5 other works are utilized, likewise informing no more than just a couple of critical points. For PhDs, with a bigger limit of 2,500 words, the inclusion of more sources will be appropriate.
Please keep in mind that the key text remains the focus of the literature review, and will thus serve to structure both the general nature of the debate and the specifics of the critical evaluation.
Method of Assessment
Each student will be assessed through a combination of seminar contribution and written work. In terms of seminar contribution, each student will make one oral presentation. For written work, two papers are required; one mid-term and one end-term. For the mid-term paper, students will write a Literature Review of 2,500 words (+/- 10%); for the end term, a Research Paper of 4,500 words (+/- 10%). The topics for the papers are of the students’ own choosing, although each paper much reflect a different topic. For the Research Paper, 40% of the overall grade is allocated; for the Literature Review, 30%; for the oral presentation, 20%; with the remaining 10% being allocated to seminar attendance and contribution.
Guidelines for Assessment
The research paper is the most important element as part of the overall assessment. In terms of grading the term paper, the categories below provide some guidance as to what qualities assessors are looking for, and what kinds of weakness may incline assessors towards giving a lower mark.
A Work of exceptional quality that authoritatively demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the topic. Well argued, organised, and structured. Critical awareness of the theoretical and/or empirical material, and shows originality of thought.
A- Work of high quality that is well above the average for a postgraduate paper. Not necessarily faultless in terms of the above, but still shows some originality of thought.
B+ A very competent piece of work displaying substantial knowledge and understanding. There may well be room for improvement in terms of organisation and structure, although in general terms the work is solid.
B Again a piece of some competence. More improvement than the above will be required organisationally and structurally. Work at this level may also display some oversimplification and irrelevance.
B- An adequate piece of work, but where significant improvements must be made.
Too much oversimplification and irrelevance. Required points are missing. Work may also contain serious grammatical errors.
C+ Inadequate. A work displaying far too many of the above weaknesses.
F A totally unacceptable piece of work. Fail.
Week 1/Seminar 1. Introduction
Week 1/Seminar 2. No Class
Week 2/Seminar 3. Third Generation Strategic Culture: Global Norms Key Text:
Nina Tannenwald, ‘Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo’, International Security, vol.29, no.4, 2005.
Week 2/Seminar 4. Third Generation Strategic Culture: Institutional Culture Key Text:
Andrew Bell, ‘Military Culture and Restraint Towards Civilians in War: Examining the Ugandan Civil Wars’, Security Studies, vol.25, no.3, 2016.
Further Reading for 2/3 & 2/4:
Jeffrey Legro, ‘Military Culture and Inadvertent Escalation in World War II’, International Security, vol.18, no.4, 1994.
Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The U.S. and the Non-Use of Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge:
CUP, 2007).
Peter Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), Chapter 4: Richard Price & Tannenwald, ‘Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboos’; Chapter 6: Elizabeth Kier, ‘Culture and French Military Doctrine Before World War II’; Chapter 7: Alistair Iain Johnston, ‘Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China’.
Theo Farrell & Helene Lambert, ‘Courting Controversy: International Law, National Norms and American Nuclear Use’, Review of International Studies, vol.27, no.3, 2001.
Farrell, ‘Transnational Norms and Military Development: Constructing Ireland’s Professional Army’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.7, no.1, 2001.
Farrell, ‘World Culture and Military Power’, Security Studies, vol.14, no.3, 2005.
Emily Goldman, ‘Cultural Foundations of Military Diffusion’, Review of International Studies, vol.32, no.1, 2006.
Edward Lock, ‘Refining Strategic Culture: Return of the Second Generation’, Review of International Studies, vol.36, no.3, 2010
Week 3/Seminar 5. Societal Security Key Text:
Ole Waever et al., Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe (London: Pinter, 1993), Chapter 2: Waever, ‘Societal Security: The Concept’.
Further Reading:
Waever et al., Identity, Migration, Chapter 3: Buzan, ‘Societal Security, State Security and Internationalisation’.
Bill McSweeney, ‘Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School’, Review of International Studies, vol.22, no.1, 1996.
Buzan & Waever, ‘Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically Untenable? The Copenhagen School Replies’, Review of International Studies, vol.23, no.2, 1997.
Jef Huysmans, ‘Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative Development of a Security Studies Agenda’, European journal of International Relations, vol.4, no.4, 1998.
Tobias Theiler, ‘Societal Security and Social Psychology’, Review of International Studies, vol.29, no.2, 2003.
Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, Chapter 10: Roe, ‘Societal Security’.
Week 3/Seminar 6. Security and Contestation: Identity and Symbolic Power Key Text:
Ronald Krebs & Jennifer Lobasz, ‘Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion and the Road to War in Iraq, Security Studies, vol.16, no.3, 2007.
Further Reading:
Krebs & Patrick Jackson, ‘Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.13, no.1, 2007.
Janice Bially Mattern, ‘The Power Politics of Identity’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.7, no.3, 2001.
Jane Cramer, ‘Militarized Patriotisms: Why the U.S. Place of Ideas Failed Before the Iraq War’, Security Studies, vol.16, no.3, 2007.
A. Trevor Thrall, ‘A Bear in the Woods? Threat Framing and the Market Place of Ideas’, Security Studies, vol.16, no.3, 2007.
Jack Holland, ‘‘When You Think of the Taliban, Think of the Nazis’: Teaching Americans ‘9/11’
in NBC’s The West Wing’, Millennium, vol.40, no.1, 2011.
Richard Jackson, Writing the War on Terrorism (Manchester: MUP, 2005).
Michael Williams, Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security (London: Routledge, 2007).
Week 4/Seminar 7. Ontological Security: Social Dependence and Routinisation Key Text:
Jennifer Mitzen, ‘Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma, European Journal of International Relations, vol.12, no.3, 2006.
Week 4/Seminar 8. Ontological Security: Shame. Honour, and Self Narrative
Key Text:
Brent Steele, ‘‘Ideals That Were Never Really in Our Possession: Torture, Honor and US Identity’, International Relations, vol.22, no.2, 2008.
Further Reading (for 4/7 & 4/8):
Steele, ‘Making Words Matter: The Asian Tsunami, Darfur, and “Reflexive Discourse” in International Politics’, International Studies Quarterly, vol.51, no.4 2007
Alexander Wendt, ‘The State as Person in International Theory’, Review of International Studies, vol.30, no.2, 2004.
Jacob Schiff, ‘‘Real’? As if! Critical Reflections on State Personhood’, Review of International Studies, vol.34, no.3, 2008.
Steele, Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State (London:
Routledge, 2008), Chapter 2, ‘Identity, Morality, and Social Action’; Chapter 3, ‘The Possibilities as Self’.
Steele, Organizational Processes and Ontological (in)Security: Torture, the CIA and the United States’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.52, no.1, 2017,
Bahar Rumelili, ‘Identity and Desecuritisation’: The Pitfalls of Conflating Ontological Security and Physical Security’, Journal of International Relations and Development, vol.18, no.1, 2013.
Ayse Zarakol, ‘Ontological (In)security and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and Japan’, International Relations, vol.24, no.1, 2010.
Huysmans, ‘Security! What do you Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.4, no.2, 1998.
Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity, and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: CUP, 1999).
Catarina Kinnvall, ‘Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for Ontological Security’, Political Psychology, vol.25, no.4, 2004.
Kinnvall, ‘Feeling Ontologically (in)Secure: States, Traumas and the Governing of Gendered Spaces’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.52, no.1, 2017.
Steele, ‘Ontological Security and the Power of Self Identity: British Neutrality and the American Civil War’, Review of International Studies, vol.31, no.3, 2005.
Mitzen, ‘Anchoring Europe’s Civilizing Identity: Habits, Capabilities and Ontological Security’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol.13, no.2, 2006.
Week 5/Seminar 9. Securitization Key Text:
Buzan, Waever, & Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998), Chapter 2: ‘Security Analysis: Conceptual Apparatus’.
Further Reading:
Ronny D. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), Chapter 3: Waever, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’.
Jef Huysmans, ‘Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative Development of a Security Studies Agenda’, European journal of International Relations, vol.4, no.4, 1998.
Olav F. Knudsen, ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization’, Security Dialogue, vol.32, no.3, 2001.
Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, Chapter 9: Ralf Emmers, ‘Securitization’.
Week 5/Seminar 10. ‘Second Generation’ Securitization Key Text:
Adam Cote, ‘Agents Without Agency: Assessing the Role of Audience in Securitization Theory’, Security Dialogue, vol.47, no.6, 2016.
Further Reading:
Thierry Balzacq, ‘The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.11, no.2, 2005.
Balzacq, Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London:
Routledge, 2011).
Matt McDonald, ‘Securitization and the Construction of Security’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.14, no.4, 2008.
Holger Stritzel, ‘Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.13, no.3, 2007.
Stritzel, ‘Security, the Translation’, Security Dialogue, vol.42, no.4-5, 2011.
Paul Roe, ‘Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK’s Decision to Invade Iraq’, Security Dialogue, vol.39, no.6, 2008.
Week 6/Seminar 11. Contextualising Securitization Key Text:
Claire Wilkinson, ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside of Europe?’, Security Dialogue, vol.38, no.1, 2007.
Further Reading:
Juha Vuori, ‘Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.14, no.1, 2008.
Monika Barthwal-Datta, ‘Securitising Threats Without the State: A Case Study of Misgovernance as a Security Threat in Bangladesh’, Review of International Studies, vol.35, no.2, 2009.
Nicole Jackson, ‘International Organizations, Security Dichotomies and the Trafficking of Persons and Narcotics in Post-Soviet Central Asia: A Critique of the Securitization Framework’, Security Dialogue, vol.37, no.3, 2006.
Pinar Bilgin, ‘Politics of Studying Securitization? Copenhagen School in Turkey’, Security Dialogue, vol.42, no.4-5, 2011.
Maria Julia Trombetta, ‘Environmental Security and Climate Change: Analysing the Discourse’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol.21, no.4, 2008.
Shirley Scott, ‘Securitizing Climate Change: International Legal Implications and Obstacles’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol.21, no.4, 2008.
Hakan Seckinelgin, Joseph Bigirumwami, & Jill Morris, ‘Securitization of HIV/AIDS in Context:
Gendered Vulnerability in Burundi’, Security Dialogue, vol.41, no.5, 2010.
Felix Ciuta, ‘Security and the Problem: A Hermeneutical Critique of Securitisation Theory’, Review of International Studies, vol.35, no.2, 2009.
Week 6/Seminar 12. No Class
Week 7/Seminar 13. The Ethics of Securitization Key Text:
Stefan Elbe, ‘Should HIV/AIDS Be Securitized? The Ethical Dilemmas of Linking HIV/AIDS and Security’, International Studies Quarterly, vol.50, no.1, 2006.
Further Reading:
Floyd, ‘Towards a Consequentialist Evaluation of Security: Bringing Together the Copenhagen and Welsh Schools of Security Studies’, Review of International Studies, vol.37, no.2, 2007.
Floyd, Security and the Environment: Securitisation Theory and US Environmental Security Policy (Cambridge: CUP, 2010).
Floyd, ‘Can Securitization Theory be used in Normative Analysis: Towards a ‘Just Securitization Theory’, Security Dialogue, vol.42, no.4-5, 2011.
Huysmans, ‘Minding Exceptions: The Politics of Insecurity and Liberal Democracy’, Contemporary Political Theory, vol.3, no.3, 2004.
Week 7/Seminar 14. The ‘Paris School’: Securitization as Practice Key Text:
Didier Bigo, ‘Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease’, Alternatives, vol.27, Special Issue, 2002.
Further Reading:
Ayse Ceyhan & Anastassia Tsoukala, ‘The Securitization of Migration in Western Societies:
Ambivalent Discourses and Policies’, Alternatives, vol.27, Special Issue, 2002.
Jef Huysmans, ‘Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: The Normative Dilemma of Writing Security’, Alternatives, vol.27, Special Issue, 2002.
Huysmans, ‘What’s in an Act: On Security Speech Acts and Little Security Nothings’, Security Dialogue, vol.42, no.4-5,
Huysmans, ‘Politics of Exception and Unease: Immigration, Asylum, and Terrorism in Parliamentary Debates in the UK’, Political Studies, vol.56, no.4, 2008.
Kelstrup & Williams (ed.), International Relations Theory and the Politics of European
Integration (London: Routledge, 2000), Chapter 8: Bigo, ‘When Two Become One: Internal and External Securitisations in Europe’.
Philippe Borbeau, ‘Moving Forward Together: Logics of the Securitisation Process’, Millennium, vol.43, no.1, 2014.
Christina Boswell, ‘Migration Control in Europe After 9/11: Explaining the Absence of Securitization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol.45, no.3, 2007.
Week 8/Seminar 15. Desecuritisation Key Text:
Lene Hansen, ‘Reconstructing Desecuritization: The Normative-Political in the Copenhagen School and Directions for How to Apply it’, Review of International Studies, vol.38, no.3, 2012.
Further Reading:
Faye Donnelly, ‘The Queen’s Speech: Desecuritizing the Past, Present, and Future of Anglo-Irish Relations, European Journal of International Relations, vol.?, no.?, 2015.
Paul Roe, ‘Securitization and Minority Rights: Conditions of Desecuritization’, Security Dialogue, vol.35, no.3, 2004.
Robert Miles & Dietrich Thranhardt (eds.), Migration and European Integration: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion (London: Pinter, 1995), Chapter 3: Jef Huysmans, ‘Migrants as a Security Problem: Dangers of “Securitizing” Societal Issues’.
Jef Huysmans, ‘The Question of the Limit: Desecuritization and the Aesthetics of Horror in Political Realism’, Millennium, vol.27, no.3, 1998.
Mark Salter, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization: A Dramaturgical Analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Authority’, Journal of International Relations and Development, vol.11, no.4, 2008.
Matti Jutila, ‘Desecuritizing Minority Rights: Against Determinism’, Security Dialogue, vol.37, no.2, 2006.
Roe, ‘Reconstructing Identities or Managing Minorities? Desecuritizing Minority Rights: A Response to Jutila’, Security Dialogue, vol.37, no.3, 2006.
Kristian Atland, ‘Mikhail Gorbachev, the Murmansk Initiative, and the Desecuritization of Interstate Relations in the Arctic’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.43, no.3, 2008.
Week 8/Seminar 16. Risk Key Text:
Michael Williams, ‘(In)Security Studies, Reflexive Modernisation and the Risk Society’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.43, no.1, 2008.
Further Reading:
William Clapton, ‘Risk in International Relations’, International Relations, vol.25, no.3, 2011.
Craig McClean, Alan Patterson & John Williams, ‘Risk Assessment, Policy-Making and the Limits of Knowledge: The Precautionary Principle in International Relations’, International Relations, vol.23, no.4, 2010.
Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, ‘‘It Sounds Like a Riddle’: Security Studies, the War on Terror and Risk’, Millennium, vol.33, no.2, 2004.
Rasmussen ‘Reflexive Security: NATO and International Risk Society’, Millennium, vol.30, no.2, 2001.
Rasmussen, ‘‘A Parallel Globalization of Terror’: 9-11, Security and Globalization’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.37, no.3, 2002
Karen Lund Petersen, ‘Risk Analysis: A Field Within Security Studies?’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.18, no.4, 2011.
Olaf Corry, ‘Securitization and ‘Riskification’: Second Order Security and the Politics of Climate Change’, Millennium, vol.40, no.2, 2012.
Mitzen & Randall Schweller, ‘Knowing the Unknown Unknowns: Misplaced Certainty and the Onset of War’, Security Studies, vol.20, no.2, 2011.
Week 9/Seminar 17. Marginalisations, Nothings, Images Key Text:
Hansen, ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’, Millennium, vol.29, no.2, 2000.
Further Reading:
Brandon Hamber, Paddy Hillyard, Amy Maguire, Monika McWilliams, Gillian Robinson, David Russell, & Margaret Ward, ‘Discourses in Transition: Re-imagining Women’s Insecurity’, International Relations, vol.20, no.4, 2006.
Hansen, ‘The Politics of Securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis: A Post-Structuralist Perspective’, Security Dialogue, vol.42, no.4-5, 2011.
Hansen, ‘Theorizing the Image for Security Studies: Visual Securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.17, no.1, 2011.
Huysmans, ‘What is in an Act? On Security Speech Acts and Little Security Nothings’, Security Dialogue, vol.42, no.4-4, 2011.
Vibeke Schou Tjalve, ‘Designing (de)Security: European Exceptionalism, Atlantic Republicanism and the ‘Public Sphere’, Security Dialogue, vol.42, no.4-5, 2011.
Campbell, ‘Cultural Governance and Pictorial Resistance: Reflections on the Imaging of War, Review of International Studies, vol.29, no.2, 2003.
Stuart Croft, ‘Images and Imaginings of Security’; James Gow, ‘Strategic Pedagogy and Pedagogic Strategy’; Andrew Hoskins, ‘Temporality, Proximity, and Security: Terror in a Media- Drenched Age’, International Relations, vol.20, no.4, 2006.
Michael Williams, ‘Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics’, International Studies Quarterly, vol.47, no.4, 2003.
Week 9/Seminar 18. Human Security, Development and Biopolitics Key Text:
Tara McCormack, ‘Human Security and the Separation of Security and Development’, Conflict, Security
& Development’ vol.11, no.2, 2011.
Further Reading:
Mark Duffield and Nicholas Waddell, ‘Securing Humans in a Dangerous World’, International Politics, vol. 43, no.1, 2006.
Edward Newman, ‘Critical Human Security Studies’, Review of International Studies, vol.36, no.1, 2010.
Heidi Hudson, ‘‘Doing’ Security as Though Humans Matter: Feminist Perspective on Gender and the Politics of Human Security’, Security Dialogue, vol.36, no.2, 2005.
Floyd, ‘Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach: Conceptualizing Human Security as a Security Move’, Human Security Journal, vol.5, no.4, 2007.
David Chandler, ‘Theorising the Shift from Security to Insecurity: Kaldor, Duffield, and Furedi’, Conflict, Security, and Development, vol.8, no.2, 2008.
Chandler, ‘Human Security: The Dog That Didn’t Bark’, Security Dialogue, vol.39, no.4, 2008.
Michael Dillon and Julian Reid, ‘Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security and War’, Millennium, vol.30, no.1, 2001.
Dillon & Luis Lobo-Guerrero, ‘Biopolitics of Security in the 21st Century: An Introduction’, Review of International Studies, vol.34, no.2, 2008.
Brad Evans, ‘Foucault’s Legacy: Security, War and Violence in the 21st Century’, Security Dialogue, vol.41, no.4, August 2010.
Week 10/Seminar 19. Security as Emancipation Key Text:
Joao Nunes, ‘Reclaiming the Political: Emancipation and Critique in Security Studies’, Security Dialogue, vol.43, no.4, 2012.
Further Reading:
Mike Bourne & Dan Bulley, ‘Securing the Human in Critical Security Studies: The Insecurity of a Secure Ethics’, European Security, vol.20, no.3, 2011.
Ken Booth, ‘Anchored in Tahrir Square’, European Security, vol.20, no.3, 2011.
Booth, ‘Security and Emancipation’, Review of International Studies, vol.17, no.4, 1991.
Booth, Theory of World Security (Cambridge: CUP, 2007).
Booth, ‘Human Wrongs and International Relations’, International Affairs, vol.71, no.1, 1995.
Williams & Kaith Krause (eds.), Critical Security Studies, Chapter 4: Booth, ‘Security and Self:
Reflections of a Fallen Realist; Chapter 11: Booth & Peter Vale, ‘Critical Security Studies and Regional Insecurity: The Case of Southern Africa’.
Richard Wyn Jones, Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999), Chapter 6: ‘Emancipation: Reconceptualizing Practice’.
Booth (ed.) Critical Security Studies and World Politics (London: Lynne Rienner, 2005), Chapter 9: Richard Wyn Jones, ‘On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity, and Concrete Utopias’; Chapter 11: Booth, ‘Beyond Critical Security Studies’.
Mark Neufeld, ‘Pitfalls of Emancipation and Discourses of Security: Reflections on Canada’s
‘Security With a Human Face’’, International Relations, vol.18, no.1, 2004.
Christopher Browning & Matt McDonald, ‘The Future of Critical Security Studies: Ethics and the Politics of Security’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.19, no.2, 2013.
Week 10/Seminar 20. No Class.
Week 11/Seminar 21. Militarised Feminities Key Text:
Christina Masters, ‘Femina Sacra: The ‘War on Terror’, Women and the Feminine’, Security Dialogue, vol.40, no.1, 2009.
Further Reading:
Laura Sjoberg & Caron E. Gentry, ‘Reduced to Bad Sex: Narratives of Violent Women from the Bible to the War on Terror’, International Relations, vol.22, no.1, 2008.
Veronique Pin-Fat, ‘The Scripting of Private Jessica Lynch: Biopolitics, Gender, and the
“Feminization” of the U.S. Military’, Alternatives, vol.30, no.1, 2008.
Deepa Kumar, ‘War Propaganda and the (Ab)Uses of Women: Media Constructions of the Jessica Lynch Story’, Feminist Media Studies, vol.4, no.3, 2004.
Sjoberg, ‘Agency, Militarized Femininity and Enemy Others: Observations from the War in Iraq’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol., no.1, 2007.
Cynthia Nantais & Martha F. Lee, ‘Women in the United States Military: Protectors or Protected?
The Case of Prisoner of War Melissa Rathbun-Nealy’, Journal of Gender Studies, vol.8, no.2, 1999.
Enloe, The Morning After, Chapter 7: ‘The Politics of Constructing the American Woman Soldier’.
Week 11/Seminar 22. The Gendering of Political Violence Key Text:
Caron Gentry, ‘Twisted Maternalism: From Peace to Violence’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.11, no.2, 2009.
Further Reading:
Jessica Auchter, ‘Gendering Terror: Discourses of Terrorism and Writing Woman-as-Agent’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.14, no.1, 2012.
Caroline O. N. Moser & Fiona C. Clarke (eds.), Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence (London: Zed Books, 2001), Chapter 8: Ann Cristina Ibanez, ‘El
Salvador: War and Untold Stories – Women Guerillas’.
Sjoberg ‘Feminist Interrogations of Terrorism/Terrorism Studies’, International Relations, vol.23, no.1, 2009.
Linda Ahall, ‘The Writing of Heroines: Motherhood and Female Agency in Political Violence’, Security Dialogue, vol.43, no.4, 2012.
Ahall, ‘Motherhood, Myth and Gendered Agency in Political Violence’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.14, no.1, 2012.
Frances S. Hasso, ‘Discursive and Political Deployments by/of the 2002 Palestinian Women Suicide Bombers/Martyrs’, Feminist Review, vol.81, no.1, 2005.
Miranda Alison, ‘Women as Agents of Political Violence: Gendering Security, Security Dialogue, vol.35, no.4, December 2004.
Eileen MacDonald, Shoot the Women First (London: Fourth Estate, 1991).
Carrie Hamilton, ‘The Gender Politics of Political Violence: Women Armed Activists in ETA, Feminist Review, vol.86, no.1, 2007.
Week 12/Seminar 23. ‘Positive-’, ‘Negative-’, and ‘Anti-Security’
Key Text:
Jonna Nyman, ‘What is the Value of Security? Contextualising the Negative/Positive Debate’, Review of International Studies, vol.?, no.?, 2016.
Further Reading:
Claudia Aradau, ‘Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation’, Journal of International Relations and Development, vol.7, no.4, 2004.
Rita Taureck (later Floyd), ‘Securitization Theory and Securitization Studies’; Andreas Behnke,
‘No Way Out: Desecuritization, Emancipation and the Eternal Return of the Political – A Reply to Aradau’; Hayward Alker, ‘On Securitization Politics as Contexted Texts and Talks’; Claudia Aradau, ‘Limits of Security, Limits of Politics? A Response’, Journal of International Relations and Development, vol.9, no.1, 2006.
Jef Huysmans, ‘Minding Exceptions: The Politics of Insecurity and Liberal Democracy’, Contemporary Political Theory, vol.3, no.3, 2004.
David Chandler, ‘The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International Relations: The Last Refuge of Critical Theorists?’, Millennium, vol.37, no.1, 2008.
Ole Waever, ‘Politics, Security, Theory’, Security Dialogue, vol.42, no.4-5, 2011.
Mark Neoclous, ‘The Problem with Normality: Taking Exception to Permanent Emergency’, Alternatives, vol.31, no.2, 2006.
Gunhild Hoogensen Gjorv, ‘Security By Any Other Name: Negative Security, Positive Security, and a Multi-Actor Security Approach’, Review of International Studies, vol.38, no.4, 2012.
Paul Roe, ‘The ‘Value’ of Positive Security’, Review of International Studies, vol.34, no.4, 2008.
Roe, ‘Is Securitization a ‘Negative’ Concept? Revisiting the Normative Debate over Normal versus Extraordinary Politics’, Security Dialogue, vol.43, no.3, 2012.
Roe, ‘Gender and Positive Security’, International Relations, vol.28, no.1, 2014.
Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity, and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge, CUP, 1999).
Week 12/Seminar 24. The Non-Human Referent: Beyond Critical Security Studies?
Key Text:
Audra Mitchell, ‘Only Human? A Worldly Approach to Security’, Security Dialogue, vol.45, no.1, 2014.
Further Reading:
Lauren Wilcox, ‘Embodying Algorithmic War: Gender, Race and the Posthuman in Drone Warfare’, Security Dialogue, vol.48, no.1, 2017.
