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]

Is it possible to imagine the deployment of geoengineering in the service of ecological security? Ecological security––a concern with the resilience of ecosystems––appears to caution against forms of intervention that might serve to change and/or undermine the functionality of ecosystems. Yet ecosystem functionality is already challenged by processes associated with climate change, and some degree of climate change is already locked in. This paper examines this challenging but important issue. After defining ecological security and noting varied forms of geoengineering, the paper explores the opportunities for––and challenges of––imagining geoengineering in the service of ecological security, especially in the context of solar radiation management. While arguing that it is possible to conceive a role for geoengineering in the service of ecological security, this must be contingent on extensive research supporting deployment and must be tempered by restraint and a commitment to precaution, humility, reflexivity and dialogue. [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.

The devastating bushfires of late 2019/ early 2020 in Australia placed the country firmly in the international spotlight. The unprecedented scale, number and severity of these fires drew attention to the role of Australia's changing climate and the broader process of climate change. It also triggered debates about the link between climate change and security, not least given concerns over the deployment of military resources in response and the existential nature of the threat to people and ecosystems. This paper examines the climate change-security relationship in the Australian context. It examines how climate change and security are related before assessing the extent to which this connection is reflected in current policy and practices in Australia. The paper concludes by reflecting on whether the bushfire crisis of 2019–20 is likely to precipitate a major change in policy settings, practices and public debate on climate change and security in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the current higher education context there are strong incentives for the development of work-ready skills for graduates. In this article, I reflect on the challenges of mediating between developing vocational skills and emphasising the immediate practical and policy relevance of coursework on one hand, and the development of critical thinking and research skills on the other, in the context of teaching Australian Foreign Policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: We propose a new approach for calculating the dynamic range of an accelerometer based on an Allan deviation analysis of production seismic data. This test is intended as a field audit technique and does not require an unconditioned dataset from a low‐noise environment. We first show that Allan deviation can measure white noise levels using two commercial accelerometers. The analysis accurately captures the manufacturing noise density specifications and known relationships between white noise, preamplifier gain, and group forming. We then show that a production seismic dataset is suitable for an Allan deviation analysis because the results are not critically affected by a recording filter. Finally, we illustrate the proposed technique by calculating the dynamic range of an accelerometer channel in a seismic streamer using a production dataset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few could have predicted that an ill-fated landing of Allied troops in modern-day Turkey in April 1915 would become the founding moment of the Australian nation. Australians were amongst several nations represented and did not suffer the most casualties, while the battle itself and the campaign of which it was a part was a military failure. Yet the notion that this battle constituted a 'coming of age' for a nascent nation, and that Australian soldiers had exhibited the defining characteristics of a national type, has become a powerful - even hegemonic - story of Australian identity. Many analysts have pointed to the militaristic, masculine and mono-cultural dimensions of a myth that weds the nation to a colonial past and in the process imposes limits on the ways in which we can imagine the nation and its role in the world. Yet as the Australian government geared up for the 2015 centenary of that landing - Anzac Day - with an unprecedented commitment of resources for commemorative activities, the shadow cast by the broader Anzac myth over Australian society and politics triggered surprisingly little public debate. This paper explores the key contours of the Anzac myth, examining the politics of Anzac memory and memorialisation in the context of the centenary of the Great War and the landing of Australian troops at Gallipoli. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last decade in Indonesia has seen the emergence of localized militia groups. In Bali, these groups are now particularly prolific. Conventional wisdom in international relations thought is that these organizations constitute a threat to the authority of the state (its monopoly on the legitimate use of force) and may require national security measures to deal with them. Yet these organizations ultimately define their own role in terms of the provision of security, claiming that they act to preserve or advance core values of their communities. In this sense, their security role with reference to the state is ambiguous: they often enjoy legitimacy at the local level and perform important security functions for their local communities, even while constituting an alternative site of security practice and challenging the (exclusive) security role of the Indonesian state. Drawing on ethnographic research, this article examines these actors as security agents and employs a framework of security contestation to make sense of the manner in which they engage with and redefine the provision of security in Bali. In this context, the emergence and practices of Balinese militia groups challenge the way we view non-state actors in the security space and, more generally, the way we conceive security agency in international relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Australia have struggled to generate and sustain public concern about climate change. If debates about climate policy can be viewed as sites of contestation between competing actors, Australia’s environmental NGOs have found it difficult to compete against countervailing forces that have sought to shape public attitudes to climate action and the contours of policy responses. While to a significant degree this reflects the power of those forces and the sentiments of the government of the day, there is also a case to be made that some of Australia’s most prominent environmental NGOs have appeared wedded to strategies inconsistent with building or sustaining public support for action or guiding policy responses. How have Australia’s largest environmental NGOs engaged climate politics, and why has this engagement taken that form? Pierre Bourdieu’s political sociology provides unique insight for coming to terms with the multifaceted nature of the constraints, opportunities, and drivers of political action, from the context of climate politics to the forces behind Australian NGOs’ engagement with that politics, and the limits of that engagement. Bourdieu’s work also suggests possible avenues for more effective forms of political communication on climate change in the Australian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While foreign policy featured prominently on the Australian political agenda in late 2014, the manner of Australia's engagement with the world challenges the idea of a ‘pivot’ from domestic politics to foreign policy. In particular, the government demonstrated a tendency to prioritise domestic political considerations, in particular public opinion, in its dealings with the outside world. This was evident across a range of issue areas: from the ‘internationalist’ agenda of asylum, climate change and aid to more traditional concerns such as bilateral relations with Indonesia and international security. This article explores these dynamics and asks what implications this has for both Australian foreign policy and theoretical accounts of the role and desirability of public engagement with foreign policy in international relations thought. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses Australian foreign policy in the first half of 2013. Particular focus is given to Australia’s seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s role in Australia-China relations. Australian domestic politics and the 2013 federal elections are also discussed.

The essay discusses the future possibilities for Australian policy on climate change as of September of 2013, highlighting obstacles facing efforts to enact climate change mitigation policies and on potential changes in Australian climate politics following the country's 2013 Federal Election. Topics addressed include opposition to a carbon tax in Australia, and the roles of civil society, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the international community in addressing climate change.

An introduction is presented in which the editors discusses topics relating to political aspects of climate change in Australia, including potential international cooperation regarding climate change mitigation and obstacles facing the implementation of a progressive climate policy in Australia.

‘Critical security studies’ has come to occupy a prominent place within the lexicon of International Relations and security studies over the past two decades. While disagreement exists about the boundaries of this sub-discipline or indeed some of its central commitments, in this article we argue that we can indeed talk about a ‘critical security studies’ project orienting around three central themes. The first is a fundamental critique of traditional (realist) approaches to security; the second is a concern with the politics of security — the question of what security does politically; while the third is with the ethics of security — the question of what progressive practices look like regarding security. We suggest that it is the latter two of these concerns with the politics and ethics of security that ultimately define the ‘critical security studies’ project. Taking the so-called Welsh School and Copenhagen School frameworks as archetypal examples of ‘critical security studies’ (and its limits), in this article we argue that despite its promises, scholarship in this tradition has generally fallen short of providing us with a sophisticated, convincing account of either the politics or the ethics of security. At stake in the failure to provide such an account is the fundamental question of whether we need a ‘critical security studies’ at all. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]

While a range of accounts have engaged with the important question of why Australia participated in military intervention in Iraq, few analyses have addressed the crucial question of how this participation was possible. Employing critical constructivist insights regarding security as a site of contestation and negotiation, this article focuses on the ways in which the Howard Government was able to legitimise Australian involvement in war in Iraq without a significant loss of political legitimacy. We argue that Howard was able to 'win' the 'war of position' over Iraq through persuasively linking intervention to resonant Australian values, and through marginalising alternatives to war and the actors articulating them. [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]

Drawing on the insights of critical security studies, this article argues that an understanding of emancipation as a process of freeing up space for dialogue and deliberation enables a focus on crucial questions, experiences and practices neglected in most orthodox accounts of security and terrorism. In particular, emancipation has the potential to serve as a philosophical anchorage for a nascent critical terrorism studies research agenda. The paper goes on to outline what a critical terrorism studies informed by a concern with emancipation might look like, focusing on a series of key questions that such an approach might encourage in the context of the post-2001 ‘war on terror’.European Political Science (2007) 6, 252–259. doi:10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210142 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on S.M. Makinda's response to the debate about the English School (ES) and security in international relations. Development of ES through mutual criticism; Makinda's contributions to the study of ES; Differences regarding definitions.

Responds to Samuel Makinda for his contribution to the debate about what the English School (ES) can teach about security. Makinda's argument against the authors' claim that ES failed to make a significant contribution to understanding security; Arguments that the authors conflate solidarism with cosmopolitanism; Mistaken concept of human security that threatens to undermine the ES approach; Hedley Bull's book on arms control.

In this paper, I explore the Australian Government's approach to international cooperation regarding global climate change from its emergence as an international political issue in the late 1980s to the present. In particular, I reflect on the ethical assumptions underpinning Australia's approach, and the ethical arguments invoked to justify Australia's stance on climate change. I argue that Australia's position has regressed from support for the central ethical principles (here defined as distributive and retributive justice) underpinning the climate change regime to an ultimate rejection of these principles. This regression is concerning for what it tells us about the Howard Government's conception of ethical responsibility in global politics. Further, and in light of the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, it is concerning given its potential to undermine meaningful international cooperation on a complex but pressing environmental issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

English School approaches to international politics, which focus on the idea of an international society of states bound together by shared rules and norms, have not paid significant explicit attention to the study of security in international relations. This is curious given the centrality of security to the study of world politics and the recent resurgence of English School scholarship in general. This article attempts to redress this gap by locating and explicating an English School discourse of security. We argue here that there is indeed an English School discourse of security, although an important internal distinction exists here between pluralist and solidarist accounts, which focus on questions of order and justice in international society respectively. In making this argument, we also seek to explore the extent to which emerging solidarist accounts of security serve to redress the insecurity of security in international relations: the tendency of traditional security praxes to privilege the state in ways that renders individuals insecure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research addressing the concept of security in international relations or a specific approach to security, almost always begins with a reflection on the extent to which security has become an essentially contested concept and that the end of the Cold War has created an opportunity or expectation that security will be broadened, redefined or reconstituted. This paper focuses on the Human Security discourse of security, a discourse that has received a significant amount of recent attention at both the academic and political level. An implicit assumption of Human Security is that the elevation of issues of human rights, economic inequality and environmental change, to the realm of security will allow greater priority to these issues. The focus in this paper will be on discussions of security in a prescriptive rather than descriptive sense. This paper will briefly summarise the Human Security discourse, then address criticisms of Human Security as a policy agenda and discourse. Criticism of Human Security is concerned with its universalism and its foundation on Western values.

The article discusses the topic of solar geoengineering as a potential response to climate change. It explains that geoengineering involves deliberate alterations to the climate system to counteract climate change, with two main forms being carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). While CDR is widely used and recognized as crucial for addressing climate change, solar geoengineering remains controversial. The article highlights the lack of attention and research on solar geoengineering in Australia, despite its unique climate and geography. It also discusses the international debate and research on solar geoengineering, emphasizing the need for Australia to consider the potential regional impacts and governance of these interventions. [Extracted from the article]

The article offers information on the change of the word length of papers contributed to the journal.