Other Individual Projects

Other on-going individual CAST research projects. 


Cultures of Corporate Security
Karen Lund Petersen
An on-going project run by Karen Lund Petersen and co-financed by the Danish Research Council. It studies the corporate security practices of more than 200 of the world's largest companies; their practice of security management as well as the nature of their collaboration with national security agencies.

(How) can They become like Us?
Ulrik Pram Gad
The focus of the recently finished ph.d. project is Danish political debates on 'Muslim relations' as interacting policy narratives. Theoretically, the dissertation investigates how various policies for relating to the other contributes to radicalization of conflict between self and other by the specific ways in which they invite (or does not invite) the other to future interaction. The dissertation analyses debates on integration and human rights of migrants and refugees, counterterrorism, freedom of expression, and Turkish EU accession. The analysis concludes that there is not one single, securitized discourse on Danish identity in relation to Muslims. But the narratives promoted are structured to produce future interaction leading in that direction.

The three years ph.d. project was financed by the University of Copenhagen research priority "Europe in Transition". The dissertation "(How) can They become like Us?" was succesfully defended on 8 October 2010. Spin offs (to be) published 2009-2014 - i.a. in Critical Studies on Terrorism 5(2) and 5(3), NordEuropa Forum 21(1), Babylon 7(1), and Distinktion no. 17.

Identity Politics and Conflict
Ulrik Pram Gad
Monograph developing the theoretical part of Ulrik Pram Gad's PhD. Theoretically, the dissertation investigates how various policies for relating to the Other contributes to radicalization of conflict between Self and Other by the specific ways in which they invite (or does not invite) the Other to future interaction. 

The Post-Colonial Relation between Greenland and Denmark
Ulrik Pram Gad
Departure in MA thesis on Greenlandic language policy and identity politics, published (in Danish) as Eskimologis skrifter no. 19. Further articles published i.a. in Journal of Language and Politics 8(1), Nordiques no. 18 as well as Politica 36(3) and 40(2). This research interest forms the background for my contribution to the Department's research group on Arctic Politics, which I coordinate - and to the University of Greenland/University of Copenhagen initiative Greenland Perspectives.

Read more:

The History of the Concept of Security
Ole Wæver
The concept of security is often treated as a simple and self-evident one where conceptual struggles are over the modifiers and specifications - national security, collective security, human security, environmental security, etc. But the meaning of security as such has changed radically in the more than 2.000 years since its Latin emergence. Meanings have varied between positive and negative, objective and subjective, as well as state, individual and other  ‘referent objects'. Exploring the history of the concept serves amongst other things to heighten awareness of the particularity of understandings assumed today, but also political imprints from structures and projects of different ages will become visible. In particular, the project will explore the emergence in the early 20th Century of security as a key value in society, the eruption in the 1940s of ‘national security' as a key concept in foreign affairs, and the possibility that the specific structure of security since then was shaped by a transferral of meaning from a raison d'etat concept running out of legitimacy with the democratisation of foreign policy. The project serves in the context of CAST and securitisation theory to historicise the particular security speech act. 

Securitisation Theory
Ole Wæver
Further work on the theory of securitization (the Copenhagen School) includes a radically revised edition of the 1998 key text by Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Various ‘reply to critics' articles will engage with issues like the ethics of security and security studies, de-securitisation and the explanatory status of the theory. The theory has spurned a surprising amount of applications as well as critical engagements, and it is therefore time to both re-state the theory, its main analysis of the sectors - military, economic, environmental, societal and political - as well as answer explicitly the critics, in many cases by specifying or developing the theory further. In addition, an underexploited potential of the theory for guidance in conflict resolution is to be explicated. 

Theories of Theory - and Securitisation Theory's kind of Theory
Ole Wæver
The discipline of International Relations has been exceedingly unfocused in its discussions of ‘theory', never engaging explicitly in debates or explorations on the possible meanings of ‘theory'. The project on ‘theories of theories' has looked during the last year at two previous key episodes in the discipline - the birth of IR realism in the 1940s-50s in the US and its re-birth as neorealism in 1979 - in order to clarify the terms for a discussion of securitisation theory: is it a theory in the classical scientific sense, should it be, and what guidelines for improvements on the theory can be drawn from a more precise understanding of the nature and structure of theory in both natural and social sciences?

Climate Change as Security Issue 
Ole Wæver
2007 saw climate change rise to a general status of international security issue - symbolically peaking when the UN Security Council met on April 17 over climate change and in October the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to IPCC and Al Gore.  How will it influence the politics of climate change if the issue has been securitized? Securitization of climate change varies greatly in terms of referent object and the exact nature of the threat, most systematically between those who see it as a security issue only when climate change leads to conflict, and those who see climate change as a security issue in itself. How does this and other differences in the form of securitization condition its likely effects? Previously, most theorists within both security studies and environmental politics have warned against a security framing for environmental affairs, but today this seems to have changed. Is this due to a general change in security affairs, where inter-issue competition create conceptual inflation, or to changes in the perceived threat or to the politics of climate change - and what does this tell about potential benefits and dangers from ‘climate security'?