Research Seminar: "Translations of security"; and "Politicians, security politics and the political game"
The Centre for Advanced Security Theory invites to a research seminar in which two papers regarding contemporary security issues will be discussed.
Karen Lund Petersen, Trine Villumsen Berlin, Ulrik Pram Gad & Ole Wæver: "Translations of security”
In contemporary security, an increasingly wide range of agencies, organizations and businesses play a central role in defining security policy and security political knowledge. This ‘diffusion’ of security knowledge and management changes the mere meaning of our concepts and practices of security – what is at stake in the processing of threats, risks, dangers and security.
The paper discussed at the research seminar will serve as an introduction to the May 2014 Conference ‘Translations of Security’.
The conference will take ‘new security studies’ beyond the established theoretical debates and schools and ask questions to translation of security across disciplines and in practice. In theoretical and empirical terms it will address how meetings between different fields of practice continually challenge, modify or maintain social understandings of security threats, risks and dangers.
Andrew Neal: “Politicians, security politics and the political game”
Andrew Neal’s current research shows that the traditional executive sovereign monopoly on security and any strategic unity of purpose are being replaced by a diffuse contest in parliamentary politics over constitutional security prerogatives, access to intelligence, oversight, and the meaning and scope of security itself. Today, more than a dozen parliamentary committees are engaged with security. Breaking with centuries of convention, we can no longer assume that security is matter for the executive with limited oversight.
The aim of the paper is to analyse and conceptualise the relationship between parliamentary politics and security. Instead of the single ‘electoral game’ conceptualised by securitization theory, the paper argues that there are multiple ‘games’ at work in parliamentary security politics. These games are specific to the multiple relationships at work in parliamentary field, such as between parties in government and opposition, between the executive and legislature, between the executive and committees, between upper and lower houses, and within each of these sub-fields.