Search

Debates in security studies in the U.S. and Europe have drifted almost completely apart. In Europe it is common to present the theoretical landscape in terms of, say, critical security studies, the Copenhagen School, traditionalism and feminism. In the U.S. it is more common to see the major debate within security studies as being the one between offensive realism and defensive realism! Previously, almost all theoretical inventions in IR were made in the U.S. Currently, distinct theories are widely associated with places like Aberystwyth (Critical Security Studies), Paris (Bigo’s Bourdieu-inspired work) and Copenhagen (securitization). The new European approaches differ not only from security studies in the US, they also stand apart from most work done in other parts of the world. Are these theories peculiarly ‘European’ and if so, why? The paper aims at explaining the emergence of these European security theories. The explanation draws partly on the political context in the different regions, and partly on features of the intellectual fields, International Relations and Security Studies. The theories are also assessed briefly as to their relevance and usefulness. To what extent are they bound to local, European problems or relevant to the issues that are addressed elsewhere and vice-versa for the theories that flourish in the U.S. and the periphery respectively? Can they travel to the other parts of the world in a helpful role? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The argument that climate change is dominated by a managerial discourse has been shown and illustrated. In light of the recent Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (December 2009), we confirm in this paper that the management discourse has become hegemonic and reflect on the political and social spheres. It has gained over other discourses, and we show that even NGOs used as an illustration of the profligacy discourse are now promoting technical solutions itself. In addition, we show that to explain this dominance, it is necessary to turn to the macro-discourse of development (a highly technical one itself) and to draw parallels between the development and the environmental fields, both of them having been linked through the sustainable development discourse. The international climate politics has indeed to be understood in the context of the global debate on development and of North-South relations. In that respect, we show that the North-South divide is now an integral component of the climate change discussions and that a contradictory double discourse has emerged, opposing the development imperative to the emissions reduction effort imperative. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]