and emancipation
Claudia Aradau
Department of Government and Politics, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University, Walton
Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK.
E-mail: C.E.Aradau@open.ac.uk
While the Copenhagen School has provided security analysts with important tools
for illuminating processes of threat construction, the reverse processes of unmaking security or desecuritization have remained seriously underspecified.
Informed by a critical sensibility, this article asks the question how can
desecuritization be thought and argues, contra the Copenhagen School, that
desecuritization has to be tackled first politically and not analytically. I show that
the dynamics of securitization/desecuritization raise questions about the type of
politics we want, whether that is democratic politics of universal norms and slow
procedures or the exceptional politics of speed and enemy exclusion. I subsequently
propose a different concept of emancipation, which is informed by the principles of
universality and recognition. This concept distances itself from both desecuritization and the equation of emancipation with security by Critical Security Studies
since it has a different logic from the non-democratic and exclusionary logic of
security and it engages more thoroughly with both democratic politics and the
conditions in which securitization becomes possible.
Journal of International Relations and Development (2004) 7, 388413.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800030
Keywords: democracy; desecuritization; emancipation; securitization; recognition;
universality
Introduction
The 2003 United Kingdom Threat Assessment of Serious and Organized Crime
lists among the most significant threats the state is facing drug trafficking,
organized immigration crime, fraud, money laundering, (possession and use of)
firearms, hi-tech crime, and sex offences against children (National Criminal
Intelligence Service 2003).1 Most national, regional or international security
reports would read along similar lines in endorsing a proliferation of new
security threats. The Copenhagen School (CoS) of security studies has
provided scholars with important tools for conceiving of these new threats in
the theory of securitization. Coined in 1995 by Ole Wver, the concept of
Journal of International Relations and Development, 2004, 7, (388413)
r 2004 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1408-6980/04 $30.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/jird
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
389
390
clear that politics is needed in the first instance and not as ulterior derivation
given that the choice between the two concepts is actually a choice about the
type of politics we want.
I shall contend that desecuritization needs to learn the lessons of the
democratic politics of emancipation. Deprived of political commitment,
desecuritization can only be a relatively sterile tool, unfit for acting upon the
world and transforming prevailing social and power relationships and the
institutions into which they are organised (Cox, quoted in Krause and
Williams 1997: xi). Emancipation itself is not a new concept in security studies
and it has been used by both Critical and (partially) by feminist security
studies. Yet, their circular definition of emancipation as security deprives the
former of its truly transformative potential. In contradistinction to this
tradition of understanding emancipation, I propose a concept of emancipation
inspired by the work of two post-Marxist French philosophers, Etienne Balibar
and Jacques Rancie`re, and subsequently present two possible strategies of
emancipation/desecuritization for societal security.4 Against the problematic
assertion that emancipation is coeval to security, their concept of emancipation
is informed by the principles of universality and recognition.
Universality and recognition likely summon the presence of two different
approaches to international politics, the poststructuralist one already
mentioned and an ethical/cosmopolitan one. The poststructuralist, Foucauldian-inspired position could be summarized as recognition against universality, while the Habermasian cosmopolitan position is in nuce recognition
through universality.5 Balibars stance is at odds with both of them and, in this
sense, raises interesting questions for the fate of the universal and struggles for
recognition in international politics. His concept of universality has a
Hegelian inspiration, always internally split, while recognition is divorced from
any link with identity. Universality is the way out from the trap of the others
particularity as dangerous. Recognition refers to the acceptance, through
discussion and argumentation, of claims made by those who would normally
be excluded from a Habermasian ideal speech situation.6 Moreover, for
Balibar (1992: 74) no democratic politics are possible without the problem of
dis-identification. However, singular this position might appear in the
landscape of theoretical International Relations, it shares with the two other
approaches a commitment to democratic politics. It also raises important
questions for the mistrust of universality or conversely, its endorsement beyond
existing institutions and proposes a different way of understanding both
emancipation and the universality of democratic politics.
The argument in this article will proceed in two stages. In the first stage, it
will focus on locating the sites of non-democratic politics within the CoS
theory of securitization and formulate them as challenges for the politics of
desecuritization. These sites are, on one hand, the Schmittian politics of
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
391
392
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
393
394
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
395
actors hold and on the symbolic capital these are endowed with, as well as on
the capacity to produce a discourse which supports and reinforces a particular
reading of reality.13
In response to Bigo, Wver has reiterated the importance of the act at the
expense of what he calls, following Austin, the conditions of a felicitous
speech act. The three main conditions that Wver (2000: 25253) lists are: (i)
the internal construction of the security speech act as a plot with an existential
threat, a point of no return and a possible way out; (ii) the position of authority
of the securitizing actor; and (iii) conditions historically associated with the
threat. Although Wver, following Judith Butlers insight that it is possible to
speak with authority without being authorized to speak (Butler 1997: 157),
claims that authority is not essential for the success of a securitizing act, it is
difficult to see how un-authorized agents can break the normal practices of
democratic politics in any meaningful way.
His example (Wver 2000: 286, footnote 7) of environmental movements
having performed un-authorized speech acts leaves open the question of
practices which are able to account for the success/failure of a speech act. On
which arguments do environmental movements base their discourse? They
often employ alternative knowledge to counter already authorized knowledge; yet, the CoS lacks the tools to allow this possibility as securitization is
limited to the act of uttering. Williams (1997: 298) has formulated this issue of
authorization/non-authorization in a Bourdieuean voice against the CoS
approach:
A key element in understanding the politics of security is thus not simply the
linguistic and conceptual structures involved, but their position within a
specific institutional setting. The ability to speak security effectively
involves the ability to mobilise specific forms of symbolic power within the
specific institutional fields in which it operates.
The CoS has avoided issues of expert knowledge given its focus on political
actors as speakers of security in the electoral game. The dynamics the CoS has
in mind are those between political actors and their electoral audience, those
who need to be convinced of the legitimacy of a security threat. While
securitization is articulated only from a specific place, in an institutional voice,
by elites (Wver 1995: 57), these elites do not occupy a Bourdieuean field but
are the traditional political elites. The authority of security professionals differs
from social conditions regarding the position of authority for the securitizing
actor (Buzan et al. 1998: 33) inasmuch as it is not a given in a social system but
rests on the mobilizing of special techniques of expert knowledge to buttress
the institutional power of an actor. To securitize, actors come up with statistics,
relate them, establish the truth on scientific bases concerning immigration or
other societal problems such as organized crime, AIDS, or human trafficking.
396
For Huysmans (2002: 42, 2004b) too, securitising migration implies the
mobilization of certain institutions, a particular kind of knowledge and specific
expectations concerning social exchanges between various social groups.
In the case of migration, Monica den Boer (1998) has shown that the
statistics apocalyptically emphasizing the criminality of immigrants are built on
the fallacy of considering a clandestine border crossing as one of the crimes for
comparison, thus illegitimately inflating the number of crimes committed by
immigrants. Migration becomes connected with crime and continuity is then
prolonged through the ethnicity of some migrants to organized crime
(Albanian, Turkish or, more generally, Eastern European migrants). Societal
threats are therefore related to what Bigo (1996: 263) has called a security
continuum based on the mobilization of specific expertise in information
gathering and sorting.
Whether securitization is linked with institutional authority or with regimes
of power/knowledge, desecuritization needs to tackle this issue and penetrate
institutionally. The security professionals institutional knowledge about
threats and the technological means to deal with such makes them impermeable to the criticism of amateurs such as non-governmental organizations,
associations, churches, spokesmen and other types of ad hoc organizations.
Bigo (2002: 74) speaks of an ethos of shared knowledge between the
professionals, a knowledge beyond the grasp of people who do not have the
know-how about risk assessment and proactivity. He has pointed out that,
despite the existence of critical discourses of securitization (especially the
securitization of migration), the articulation of migration as a security problem
continues (2002: 63).
Bigo (2002: 66) is aware that it is not directly by arguing for migrants and
against securitization that critical discourses can change the situation. What is
implicit in his criticism is the fact that challenging the securitization of
migration cannot be done in the general terms of arguing for migrants as nondangerous/good/friendly rather than dangerous/bogus/inimical. It either has to
propose alternative knowledge for how to deal with migration or other societal
issues or it has to in a Foucauldian vein expose the experts regime of
truth (Bigo 2002: 66).
Through issues of authority, non-transparent and non-democratic politics
infuse democracy itself in a series of institutional locales. The exceptionalism of
security metamorphoses into a different suspension of democratic procedures,
a suspension motivated by expert knowledge. A Foucauldian-inspired
desecuritizing move would analyze and expose the conditions in which the
authority of truth is given to a discourse (Bigo 2002: 66). A genealogical
analysis of the practices of security and sovereignty can re-open and make
contingent the assumptions with which securitization works. Such an analysis
would function only as a critique14 and the question remains of how to enact
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
397
398
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
399
little mermaids utter their security concerns, other little mermaids risk being
silenced.
This point about the enmity and exclusion constitutive of security has not
raised many concerns as it seems obvious that vulnerable women would utter
their insecurities against existing security articulations privileging the state or
patriarchal power relations. What happens when such an uttering of insecurity
leads to increased insecurity for other subjects of power relations? The
securitization of trafficking in women would fit the feminist logic of giving
voice to the insecurities of those who suffer at the hands of traffickers only to
be revictimized by the state as illegal immigrants and prostitutes. It has
appeared almost self-evident to activists to point out these insecurities of
trafficked women and to try to obtain protection for them (Jordan 2002). Such
a move of securing the victims of trafficking has, however, led to spiralling
insecurity for prostitutes (now subjected to increasing raids, interrogatories,
and incarceration) as well as for asylum-seekers and refugees (suspected of
having been trafficked or of being exploited).18 The Schmittian politics at the
heart of security will reiterate the logic of enmity against other others and
feminists, just like critical theorists, would need another concept to ground
their normative politics. Democratic politics is incompatible with the politics of
security as we cannot all be equal sharers of security.
Reclaiming security as both Critical and feminist security studies functions
more as a counter-securitization and not desecuritization, as this move leaves
intact the logic of security that shapes social relations. They only attempt to
shift security within the social realm and shuffle various categories of security
have-nots. Individual or human security cannot be the answer of emancipatory
politics as this would trigger the question of whose individual security is
supposed to be sacrificed. Who is to be made dangerous so that others be made
secure? On which grounds can one privilege such a construction of security, the
security of migrants over the security of racists, the security of HIV-positive
people over those at risk of being infected? The line of inquiry could be
prolonged by many other examples. Huysmans has also argued that it is
difficult to employ security in an emancipatory way in the context of societal
questions as the security formation in this field is a conservative one with
strong roots in a vulgarised Hobbesian version of the human condition
(2002: 60).
At this point it is important to remind ourselves of Rob Walkers insight
(1997: 78) that it is only in the context of the subject of security that it is
possible to envisage a critical discourse about security, a discourse which
engages with contemporary transformations of political life, with emerging
accounts of who we might become, and the conditions under which we might
become other than we are now without destroying others, ourselves, or the
planet on which we all live.19 A new concept to unmake security has to make
400
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
401
402
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
403
404
process and freedom. By virtue of their being universally applicable, such rights
can be reclaimed by those particular categories which are excluded from it.
Those who are insecure can challenge the logic of security by claiming rights
that are universally bestowed, but not applicable in practice to a specific
category.
In terms of societal threats, such a project of emancipation would reactivate
a principle of equal rights for all citizens. Any claim made by minorities, for
example, for studying and having institutional access in their own language
should not be made in terms of claims to autonomy or secession, but rather in
terms of the constitutional rights that already exist and which concern equally
and indifferently all citizens. Although Paul Roe (2004) has recently argued,
following Will Kymlicka, that managing minority issues imposes a requirement upon the state to live with the prospect of secession, my contention is that
minority rights cannot be framed in particularistic terms, such as difference of
culture and identity. Moreover, emancipation is not a privilege of the state, but
the struggle is fought against the states practices of domination and
securitization.26
Any struggle for minority rights is instead to be phrased in terms of already
existing constitutional rights which address everybody.27 Such rights as the
right to study in ones language are generally applicable and yet a certain part
of society has been excluded from enjoying this right. Minority issues would
thus not risk flaring up into security issues. Rather than creating a dynamics of
friend/enemy, such a strategy sets in a place a solidarity of different parts of
society as the respect of the universally valid constitutional rights concerns
everybody.
The principles that are already given such as equality for example
cannot however be claimed by those who are not recognized as members of the
community. The binary strategy in which those excluded from the universal
claim inclusion against authority needs to be modified. The emancipatory
strategy discussed so far concerns those who are an integral part of the political
community. It is only these people who can fulfil the two criteria that Balibar
sets for emancipation: recognition and universality. The other emancipatory
strategy considers the other other, the one who does not belong to the
political community or is not acknowledged in terms of belonging. This
category simply refers to those others who are too removed from us for
political identification to be possible, those who are not part of our political
community. Thus, migrants, refugees, people in Bosnia, those who are not part
of a Western political community, for example, cannot give rise to the
emancipatory strategy I have shown.
What happens when the dangerous, risky others have no place in the
community and they can make no claim to the rights of citizenship or other
rights equally bestowed to all members of the community? The answer does not
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
405
406
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
407
408
Notes
1 I would especially like to thank Jef Huysmans for his patience with numerous versions of this
article and stimulating discussions, as well as Michael Merlingen and Raia Prokhovnik for
comments. The editors and reviewers have offered valuable suggestions.
2 For an overview, see Terry Terriff et al. (1999).
3 I disagree with Michael Williams that desecuritization is equivalent to asecurity (2003).
Desecuritization is processual, while asecurity refers to a state deprived of the dynamics that
turns security issues into different types of issues.
4 The work of Etienne Balibar and Jacques Rancie`re is especially interesting as they closely engage
issues of migration or racism. See Rancie`re (1999), Balibar (1992). Societal security has been a
stumbling block for the theory of securitization as it brought home the necessity to consider its
political implications and the relation to desecuritization.
5 For the first position, see for example Cynthia Enloe (1996). For the second, see Andrew
Linklater (1996).
6 Robert Fine and Will Smith have called them the pariah people, those who have little or no
possibility of participating in rational discourses or in the forms of communication necessary for
reasonable will-formation (2003: 475).
7 This second site of non-democratic politics is inspired by Didier Bigos criticism of how the CoS
defines the speech act (2002) or, to paraphrase Jef Huysmans article in the same issue (2002),
how they fail to embed discourse.
8 By logic of security I mean the ordering function (Huysmans 1998b) that security performs
and not the rhetorical grammar of securitization.
9 In the Security Framework, the CoS has identified five sectors of security: military, political,
societal, economic, and environmental. Laustsen and Wver (2000) recently argued for another
possible sector of security: religion. Sectoral differentiation serves to distinguish between referent
structures of securitization (societal securitization will tackle identity, while military security is
concerned with state survival) and makes sense of the post-Cold War proliferation of threats.
Although I agree with Bigos objection (1998) to the analytical distinction between state and society
as referent objects of security (according to him, the distinction does not exist in the discourses of
security professionals), the securitizations discussed in this article could be largely defined as
societal. This choice is not only motivated by societal security being the most problematic sector for
the political effects of securitization, but also by my particular interest in the issue of migration.
For a theoretical argument on the dedifferentiation of state and society, see Iver Neumann (1998).
10 On the exceptionalism of security according to a Schmittian logic, see especially Huysmans
(1998a, 1998b, 2004a) and Williams (2003).
11 Giorgio Agamben (1999: 50) warned against the dangers of a normalized exception. The
normalization of exceptional politics risks undermining the values of liberal democracies.
12 See the debate in Cooperation and Conflict, especially Johan Eriksson (1999) and Ole Wvers
reply (1999).
13 For the purposes of this article, I bracket the second criticism that Bigo names, namely that
expert knowledge is risk knowledge. For a follow-up on the link between security and risk, see
Bigo (2000b, 2002), Huysmans (2002), and Aradau (2003a, 2004).
14 For Foucault (1988: 154), critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are.
It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of unfamiliar,
unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest.
15 Slavoj Zizek (2000: 90) uses the Freudian Yes, please! reply to a question that requires a choice
between two alternatives as a refusal of choice. In this case, the alternative of desecuritization or
emancipation is a false alternative as a politics of desecuritization can only be understood by
means of a politics of emancipation.
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
409
16 I refer here to the Critical security studies (capital C) and not to critical security studies for
which Keith Krause and Michael Williams have written a persuasive manifesto (1997).
17 Lene Hansen does not, however, join the feminists in endorsing emancipation but tries to bring
Judith Butlers insights into the CoS. In claiming security for those who do not have it, Hansen
follows the feminist tradition of emancipation as security, even if not theoretically engaging
with the concept of emancipation.
18 For the insecurity concerns of prostitutes, see Adams (2003) expressing the views of the English
Collective of Prostitutes and Legal Action for Women (UK). Doezema (1998) offered a
persuasive theoretical account of how the in-securing of sex workers functions. Turned into
innocent passive victims, trafficked women are to be protected at the expense of dirty whores
who are to be policed and punished. Her discontent concerns the ignorance of the prostitutes
human rights and the false divisions representations of trafficking create among sex workers.
19 On the subject of security, see also Hansen (2000) and McSweeney (1999).
20 Wvers (1998) contribution to Security Communities makes the case for a desecuritization
without others. Post-war Europe can become desecuritized given the securitization of its past (as
fragmentation). Wver refutes a process of othering by Europe. What he discusses, however, is
specifically the desecuritization of hard core security patterns and only suggests that Europe has
become the locus for non-military threats. It is thus not that Europe is not othering anymore,
but that Europes others are not necessarily military others as state security has been displaced
to the societal sector. See also Buzan and Wver (2003: chapter 11).
21 Poststructuralists would be hostile to the idea of discriminating between others (Campbell 1992;
Behnke 1999). Yet, they also need to appeal to another concept to back up their politics if they
have to deal with racism or fascism, for example. The old liberal notion of tolerance would help
poststructuralists narrow down their politics in a more progressive way.
22 The necessity of discriminating between security issues led Neumann (1998) to coin the concept
of violization to refer to violent actions which have a material character (e.g. the outbreak of
war) and restrict securitization to violence which is wrought by structural factors and by speech
acts.
23 Thomas Risse (2000) has discussed the implications of Habermas communicative action for
International Relations.
24 On the false universality approach, see Butler (2000).
25 Virginie Guiraudons general argument for a less restrictive migration policy is problematically
based on a restriction of democracy by privileging restricted loci of debate or venues where
bureaucrats are not encumbered by electoral pressures and can become policy entrepreneurs.
For a very pertinent discussion of Guiraudon, see Huysmans (2000: 16365).
26 For a discussion of the desecuritizing project of the liberal state, see Aradau (2003b).
27 This can, however, become problematic when ethnic particularism has been inscribed in
constitutional documents to the exclusion of other ethnic groups, such as in the case of the exYugoslav Republics. In this case, the political struggle has to be fought first in terms of the
universality of the political community of the nation-state. The second emancipatory strategy I
shall discuss would be more appropriate in this case.
28 The atrocities committed in ex-Yugoslavia are seen as no different from the atrocities committed
by terrorists or the Nazis, thus excluding them from the shared humanity. The only response
they trigger is horror, the feeling characteristic of an encounter with the inhuman.
29 I borrow here from Rancie`res analysis of the Algerian case. At the time of the Algerian War,
the French police threw the bodies of Algerian militants in the Seine. French citizens then
accused their government of having removed the bodies, of having made them invisible
(Rancie`re 1999: 13839; 1998). Although Algerians have a claim to belonging to the French
community on the basis of citoyennete, what is of interest for me is the strategy of disidentification from the practices of the French state.
410
30 Personal communication at the London Social Forum with a representative of the Latin
American Workers Association, 3 October, 2003, London School of Economics.
31 The Gloszczuk, Kondova, Barkovici and Malik, and Jany cases (C-63/69, C-235/99, C-257/99,
C-268/99, respectively).
References
Adams, Niki (2003) Anti-trafficking legislation: protection or deportation?, Feminist Review 73:
1358.
Agamben, Giorgio (1999) Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive, New York: Zone
Books.
Agamben, Giorgio (2003) LEtat dexception, Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Aradau, Claudia (2003a) Trafficking in women: human rights or human risks?, Canadian Woman
Journal/Les Cahiers de la Femme(cws/cf) 22(3/4): 559.
Aradau, Claudia (2003b) Desecuritize and Despair! The Copenhagen School Revisited, Budapest:
Central European University, Working Paper.
Aradau, Claudia (2004) The Perverse politics of four-letter words: risk and pity in the
securitisation of human trafficking, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33(2):
forthcoming.
Ayoob, Mohammed (1997) Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective, in Keith Krause
and Michael C. Williams, eds, Critical Security Studies, 12146, Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Balibar, Etienne (1992) Droit de cite: Culture et politique en democratie, Paris: Editions de lAube.
Balibar, Etienne (2002) Politics and the Other Scene, London: Verso.
Balibar, Etienne (2004) We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship,
translated by James Swendon, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Behnke, Andreas (1999) Postmodernising Security, Paper Presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions,
Mannheim, 2631 March: available at http://www.essex.ac.uk/ECPR/events/jointsessions/
paperarchive/mannheim/w18/behnke.pdf (25 July, 2004).
Behnke, Andreas (2000) The Message or the Messenger? Reflections on the Role of Security
Experts and the Securitisation of Political Issues, Cooperation and Conflict 35(1): 37597.
Bigo, Didier (1996) Polices en reseaux: Lexperience europeenne, Paris: Presses de Sciences po.
Bigo, Didier (1998) LEurope de la securite interieure: Penser autrement la securite, in AnneMarie Le Gloannec, ed., Entre Union et Nations, 5590, Paris: Presses de Sciences po.
Bigo, Didier (2000a) Liaison officers in Europe: New officers in the European security field, in
James Sheptycki, ed., Issues in Transnational Policing, 67100, London: Routledge.
Bigo, Didier (2000b) Identifier, categorizer et controler, in Gilles Sainati and Laurent Bonelli, eds,
La machine a` punir: Pratiques et discourse securitaires, 5385, Paris: Lesprit frappeur.
Bigo, Didier (2001) Migration and Insecurity, in Virginie Guiraudon and Christian Joppke, eds,
Controlling a New Migration World, 12149, London: Routledge.
Bigo, Didier (2002) Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of
Unease, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27(1): 6392.
den Boer, Monica (1998) Crime et immigration dans lUnion Europeenne, Cultures et conflits
(31/32): available at http://www.conflits.org/articles.php3?id_article 333 (14 January, 2004).
Booth, Ken (1991) Security and Emancipation, Review of International Studies 17(3): 31326.
Booth, Ken (1995) Human Wrongs and International Relations, International Affairs 71(1):
10322.
Booth, Ken (1997) Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist, in Keith Krause and Michael
C. Williams, eds, Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, 83119, London: UCL Press.
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
411
Butler, Judith (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith (2000) Restaging the Universal: Hegemony and the Limits of Formalism, in Judith
Butler, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary
Dialogues on the Left, 1143, London: Verso.
Buzan, Barry (1997) Rethinking Security after the Cold War, Cooperation and Conflict 32(1):
528.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wver and Jaap de Wilde (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis,
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Buzan, Barry and Ole Wver (2003) Regions and Power: The Structure of International Security,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, David (1992) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity,
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Campbell, David (1998) Epilogue: The Disciplinary Politics of Theorizing Identity, in David
Campbell Writing Security, 2nd edition, 20727, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Connolly, William (1991) Identity/Difference: Negotiations of a Political Paradox, Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Doezema, Jo (1998) Forced to Choose: Beyond the Voluntary v. Forced Prostitution Dichotomy,
in Kamala Kempadoo and Jo Doezema, eds, Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance, and
Redefinition, 2950, London: Routledge.
Dunn, Tim and Nicholas J. Wheeler (2004) We the Peoples: Contending Discourses of Security
in Human Rights Theory and Practice, International Relations 18(1): 923.
Elbe, Stefan (2004) The Futility of Protest? Biopower and Biopolitics in the Securitisation of HIV/
AIDS, Paper presented at the ISA Convention, Montreal, Quebec.
Enloe, Cynthia (1996) Margins, silences and bottom rungs: how to overcome the underestimation
of power in the study of international relations, in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia
Zalewski, eds, International theory: positivism & beyond, 186202, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Eriksson, Johan (1999) Observers or Advocates? On the Political Role of Security, Cooperation
and Conflict 34(3): 31131.
Fine, Robert and Will Smith (2003) Jurgen Habermass Theory of Cosmopolitanism,
Constellations 10(4): 46987.
Foucault, Michel (1988) Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 19771984,
New York: Routledge.
Guiraudon, Virginie (2000) European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy-making as
Venue Shopping, Journal of Common Market Studies 38(2): 25171.
Hansen, Lene (2000) The Little Mermaids Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender
from the Copenhagen School, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29(2): 285306.
Huysmans, Jef (1998a) Desecuritisation and the Aesthetics of Horror in Political Realism,
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27(3): 56989.
Huysmans, Jef (1998b) Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier,
European Journal of International Relations 4(2): 22655.
Huysmans, Jef (2000) Contested community: Migration and the question of the political in the
EU, in Morten Kelstrup and Michael C. Williams, eds, International Relations Theory and the
Politics of European Integration, 14970, London: Routledge.
Huysmans, Jef (2002) Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: The Normative
Dilemma of Writing Security, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27(1): 4162.
Huysmans, Jef (2004a) Minding Exceptions: Politics of Insecurity and Liberal Democracy,
Contemporary Political Theory 3(3): forthcoming.
Huysmans, Jef (2004b) Conceptualizing Spill-over through a Foucaultian Lens: Freedom and
Security in the EU, Journal of International Relations and Development 7(3): 294318.
412
Jordan, Ann D. (2002) Human Rights or Wrongs? The Struggle for a Rights-based Response to
Trafficking in Human Beings, Gender and Development 10(1): 2837.
Krause, Keith and Michael C. Williams (1997) From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical
Security Studies, in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds, Critical Security Studies:
Concepts and Cases, 3360, London: UCL Press.
Laustsen, Carsten Bagge and Ole Wver (2000) In Defence of Religion: Sacred Referent Objects
for Securitisation, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29(3): 70539.
Linklater, Andrew (1996) The Achievements of Critical Theory, in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and
Marysia Zalewski, eds, International Theory: Positivism & Beyond, 279300, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McSweeney, Bill (1999) Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neumann, Iver (1998) Identity and the Outbreak of War: Or Why the Copenhagen School of
Security Studies Should Include the Area of Violisation in Its Framework of Analysis, The
International Journal of Peace Studies 3(1): available at http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/
vol3_1/Neuman.htm (25 July, 2004).
National Criminal Intelligence Service (2003) United Kingdom Assessment of Serious and
Organised Crime, available at http://www.ncis.co.uk/ukta/2003_default.asp (13 July, 2004).
Pettman, Jan Jindy (1996) Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics, London: Routledge.
Rancie`re, Jacques (1995) On the Shores of Politics, translated by Liz Heron, London: Verso.
Rancie`re, Jacques (1998) The Cause of the Other, Parallax 4(2): 2533.
Rancie`re, Jacques (1999) Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy, translated by Julie Rose,
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Rancie`re, Jacques (2001) Ten Theses on Politics, Theory & Event 5(3): available at http://
muse.jhu.edu.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/journals/theory_and_event/v005/5.3ranciere.html (1 October, 2004).
Risse, Thomas (2000) Lets Argue!: Communicative Action in World Politics, International
Organization 54(1): 139.
Roe, Paul (2004) Securitization and Minority Rights: Conditions of Desecuritization, Security
Dialogue 35(3): 27994.
Saward, Michael (2003) Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smith, Steve (2000) The Increasing Insecurity of Security Studies: Conceptualizing Security in the
last 20 Years, in Stuart Croft and Terry Terriff, eds, Critical Reflections on Security and Change,
72101, London: Frank Cass.
Terriff, Terry, Stuart Croft, Lucy James and Patrick M. Morgan (1999) Security Studies Today,
London: Polity Press.
Tickner, Ann (2001) Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era,
New York: Columbia University Press.
Wver, Ole (1995) Securitisation and Desecuritisation, in Ronnie D. Lipschutz, ed., On Security,
4686, New York: Columbia University Press.
Wver, Ole (1998) Security, Insecurity and Asecurity in the West-European Non-War
Community, in Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, eds, Security Communities, 69118,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wver, Ole (1999) Securitizing Sectors? Reply to Eriksson, Cooperation and Conflict 34(3):
33440.
Wver, Ole (2000) The EU as a security actor: reflections from a pessimistic constructivist on postsovereign security orders, in Morten Kelstrup and Michael C. Williams, eds, International
Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration, 25094, London: Routledge.
Wver, Ole (2002) Security: A Conceptual History for International Relations, Paper presented at
the BISA annual conference, London: London School of Economics, 1618 December.
Claudia Aradau
Security and the democratic scene
413
Walker, Rob B.J. (1997) The Subject of Security, in Keith Krause and Michael Williams, eds,
Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, 6182, London: UCL Press.
Williams, Michael C. (1997) The Institutions of Security: Elements of a Theory of Security
Organizations, Cooperation and Conflict 32(3): 287307.
Williams, Michael C. (2003) World, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics,
International Studies Quarterly 47(4): 51132.
Wyn Jones, Richard (1999) Security, Strategy and Critical Theory, London: Lynne Rienner.
Zizek, Slavoj (1992) The Sublime Object of Ideology, 3rd edition, London: Verso.
Zizek, Slavoj (2000) Class Struggle or Postmodernism? Yes, please!, in Judith Butler, Ernesto
Laclau and Slavoj Zizek, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the
Left, 90135, London: Verso.