Author(s): Valentin STOIAN-IORDACHE
Publication name: Romanian Intelligence Studies Review
Publisher name: Mihai Viteazul National Intelligence Academy
Publication type: Journal article
Publication date: December 31, 2018
Pagination:
Issue/ Volume: 19-20/2018
DOI:
Abstract
Practices of contesting security have been identified by several authors, such as
Claudia Aradau, Florent Blanc or Matt Mcdonald in actions ranging from protests
against the Iraq war, Roma people cleaning up trash, the re-shaping public discourse on
security and judicial contestation of national security policies. The paper first criticizes
the practices of contesting security that the literature has uncovered by focusing on their
insufficiently deliberative character. It argues that securitization theory, as originally
formulated by the Copenhagen school, opposed the logic of security to the logic of
deliberation. Thus, the paper concludes that these practices include a type of non-public
reasons which a real deliberative democracy would exclude.
Alternatively, the paper looks to the concept of public reason as formulated by
political theorist John Rawls as a better understanding of how de-securitization should
proceed. It argues that only public reason-giving practices, such as judicial contestation
can amount to a true de-securitization.
Keywords: securitization, Rawls, Copenhagen school.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.