Search

Who has responsibility for addressing the security implications of climate change? States and the United Nations justify their existence on the promise of providing security. Yet, although the national and international security implications of climate change are increasingly acknowledged, incorporation of climate change in national security planning or institutional arrangements is far from universal, while debates in the UN Security Council about its role in addressing climate change have been characterized by contestation. This article examines key debates about the responsibilities these institutions have for providing security in the face of the threats posed by climate change, examining the extent to which these institutions accept responsibility for providing security in these contexts. Drawing on Toni Erskine's notion of institutional moral agency, the article examines a 2017 inquiry into the national security implications of climate change in Australia, and the September 2021 UN Security Council debate on the international security implications of climate change. These two case studies explicitly focus on the question of institutional responsibility – of the Australian Government and the UN Security Council respectively – for addressing the threat of climate change. In both cases these institutions stop short of accepting responsibility for providing security in the face of climate change, with limited policy responses or institutionalization as the result. With the security implications of climate change increasingly apparent, and increasingly recognized by these (and other) actors, the failure to accept responsibility raises potentially significant questions about the legitimacy of these institutions themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The security implications of climate change are increasingly acknowledged in academic scholarship and in national security strategy documents. Climate change has also increasingly featured in UN Security Council (UNSC) debates since the first discussion of this topic in 2007. However, the UNSC has yet to agree a resolution formally recognizing its own role in addressing the implications of climate change for international security; a draft resolution on this issue was voted down in late 2021. Examining the statements and contours of 2021 debates preceding this vote, this article points to fundamental impediments to such a resolution, with the position of opponents (Russia, China and India) suggesting intractable obstacles linked to different visions of world order. While opponents' stated concerns about the UNSC's role in addressing climate change find some support in existing scholarship, the authenticity of claims made by opponents is called into question by the internal inconsistency of these arguments, the gap between stated concerns and foreign policy in other contexts, and the broader foreign policy interests and identities of these states. These factors present key impediments not simply to a UNSC resolution, but arguably to international action consistent with the urgency of the climate crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author responds to the analysis of his book "Ecological Security: Climate Change and the Construction of Security." Topics include the author's clarification of the aims of his book, his arguments on the concerns raised by researcher Tor Benjaminsen such as his suggestion that the book might have benefited from engaging more directly with debates about climate justice, and the author's account of agency in ecological security in his book.

Abstract: Global climate change has been increasingly defined as a security threat by a range of political actors and analysts. Yet as the range of voices articulating the need to conceive and approach climate change as a security issue has expanded, so too has the range of ways in which this link has been conceptualized. This article systematically maps different approaches to the relationship between climate change and security as climate security discourses, divided here between national, human, international and ecological security discourses. In exploring the contours of each, the articles asks how the referent object of security is conceptualised (whose security is at stake?); who are conceived as key agents of security (who is responsible for/able to respond to the threat?); how is the nature of the threat defined; and what responses are suggested for dealing with that threat? Systematically mapping these alternative discourses potentially provides a useful taxonomy of the climate change–security relationship in practice. But more importantly, it serves to illustrate how particular responses to climate change (and the actors articulating them) are enabled or constrained by the ways in which the relationship between security and climate change is understood. The article concludes by suggesting that the most powerful discourses of climate security are unlikely to inform a progressive or effective response to global climate change. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's first National Security Statement in 2008 identified climate change as a ‘fundamental’ threat to national security. Two years later, Rudd was deposed with little to show for climate activism beyond the largely symbolic ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Australians largely accepted Rudd's claim that climate change constituted a threat, yet relatively mainstream climate-policy measures were subjected to significant, and ultimately effective, political opposition. This has important implications for climate politics in Australia. This paper, however, focuses on implications for the securitization framework. Specifically, the author argues that this case raises serious questions about the capacity of the framework to account for the mobilising power of security or the dynamics of its construction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the lead-up to the Australian federal election in 2010, both major political parties represented the 'unauthorised' arrival of asylum-seekers as a security issue. This article explores the dynamics of this resecuritization of asylum in Australia, suggesting the case has important implications for both the securitization framework and Australia's treatment of asylum-seekers. The relationship between securitization and calls for an open debate about asylum-seekers challenges the securitization framework's normative claims about political debate and deliberation as a progressive development illustrative of desecuritization (the removal of issues from the security agenda). This case also illustrates that without political leadership to engage with the social and cultural context that allows the securitization of asylum to resonate with large segments of the Australian population, the exploitation of this issue for short-term political gain will continue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In justifying participation in military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the “war on terror,” Australian Prime Minister John Howard invoked the memory of Australian sacrifice in war, linked most prominently to the so-called “Anzac myth.” This paper explores the role of memory politics in enabling military intervention, discussing in the process the relationship between sites and forms of remembrance and broader discourses of national identity. This use of collective memory has significant implications for debates about Australian identity, and suggests the need for approaches to the study of international relations to take seriously the role of memory politics in coming to terms with conditions of possibility for particular security policies and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Those interested in the construction of security in contemporary international politics have increasingly turned to the conceptual framework of 'securitization'. This article argues that while an important and innovative contribution, the securitization framework is problematically narrow in three senses. First, the form of act constructing security is defined narrowly, with the focus on the speech of dominant actors. Second, the context of the act is defined narrowly, with the focus only on the moment of intervention. Finally, the framework of securitization is narrow in the sense that the nature of the act is defined solely in terms of the designation of threats. In outlining this critique, the article points to possibilities for developing the framework further as well as for the need for those applying it to recognize both limits of their claims and the normative implications of their analysis. I conclude by pointing to how the framework might fit within a research agenda concerned with the broader construction of security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the implications of the deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon for security. Approach of the Brazilian government to the issue of Amazonian deforestation; Attainment of national security; Change in the context in which security was perceived.