spectrum of exceptional/institutionalized.’ 53 The third point is the most
important, it is exactly this that allows for a clearer definition between ordinary
and extraordinary measures, by suggesting that ‘Institutionalised security
responses still operate on the threat-urgency modality, but often take the form
of gradual and incremental intensification and often do not violate normal operating rules understood in a domestic, democratic context.’ 54 This framework
applies the exact same logic already seen on a domestic level, for example the
urgent responses of armed police.
Humanitarian securitisation also offers another solution to one of the
Welsh School’s most powerful criticisms of the CS securitisation, in that it
provides a voice to those who were previously voiceless as a result of the
restrictive nature of the sectors and definition of security. By taking on a
normative approach, and conforming to a more emancipatory understanding of
security in line with that of Booth, Watson applies this revised securitisation
theory to the West’s provision of aid to the ‘2004 Indian Ocean tsunami’ to
demonstrate how ‘emergency assistance allows the advantaged to address
symptoms of vast global inequality without addressing underlying structural
causes, or in some cases by extending the very economic practices that contribute to poverty and human vulnerability.’ 55 Thus, broadening the CS
securitisation theory alongside humanitarian discourse offers an innovative and
productive area of research for future security studies.
There are still significant gaps in the research of CS in relation to societal
security that this essay has not addresses yet, however an understanding of the
socio-psychological literature of social identity theory (SIT) builds upon and
53 Scott Watson, "The ‘Human’ As Referent Object?", Security Dialogue , 42.1 (2011), 3-20, p.6. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610393549>.
54 Watson, p. 12. 55 Watson, p. 16.
23
Made with FlippingBook HTML5