Critical Security Studies and Alternative Dialogues for Peace: Reconstructing ‘Language Barriers’ and ‘Talking Points’

  • Faye Donnelly


On paper, it is easy to assume that critical peace studies1 and critical security studies share the same lexicon. Evidently, each discipline adopts various modes of immanent critique to expose and alleviate insecurities in different environments. They are equally similar insofar as their core concepts, peace and security, are easily recognizable and commonly deployed within academic and everyday grammars. Added to all of the above, these two words can be, and often are, used interchangeably. These interweavings are particularly visible in the United Nations’ thematic heading2 and the professed mission statements of its institutional arms.


International Relation Language Barrier Human Security Disciplinary Perspective Security Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 3.
    K. Krause and M. C. Williams, ‘Preface: Toward Critical Securities’, in Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, eds K. Krause and M. C. Williams (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), vii–xxiii.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    B. Buzan, ‘Peace, Power, and Security: Contending Concepts in the Study of International Relations’, Journal of Peace Research 21, no. 2 (1984): 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 5.
    For further discussion, see J. George, ‘International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate’, International Studies Quarterly 33 (1989): 269–279;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. J. George and D. Campbell, ‘Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1990): 269–293;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. P. T. Jackson, ‘Constructing Thinking Space: Alexander Wendt and the Virtues of Engagement’, Cooperation and Conflict 36, no. 1 (2001): 109–120;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. P. T. Jackson, The Conduct of International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics (London and New York: Routledge, 2011).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. B. Gallie, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1955–1956): 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Among others, see B. Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2nd ed. (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991);Google Scholar
  9. W. E. Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse (Oxford: Robertson, 1983);Google Scholar
  10. S. Dalby, ‘Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas of Contemporary Security Discourse’, in Critical Security Studies, eds Keith Krause and Michael Williams (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1997), 3–32;Google Scholar
  11. K. Fierke, Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge: Polity, 2007).Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    On the idea of peace as an ECC, see S. Guzzini and D. Jung, ‘Copenhagen Peace Research’, in Contemporary Security Analysis and Copenhagen Peace Research, eds S. Guzzini and D. Jung (London: Routledge, 2004);Google Scholar
  13. R. Mac Ginty, No War, No Peace: The Rejuvenation of Stalled Peace Processes and Peace Accords (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O. P. Richmond, ‘A Post-Liberal Peace: Eirenism and the Everyday’, The Review of International Studies 35, no. 3 (2009): 557–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 10.
    See H. Patomäki, ‘How to Tell Better Stories about World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 1 (1996): 105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 11.
    O. Wæver used this phrasing in his 2004 paper ‘Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New “Schools” in Security Theory and Their Origins between Core and Periphery’, paper presented at 45th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Canada, 17–20 March. Also see the C.A.S.E Collective, ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’, Security Dialogue 37, no. 4 (2006): 443–487;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. C. Peoples and N. Vaughan Williams, Critical Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2010).Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    For extensive overviews of the evolving fields of critical security studies, see C. Aradau, J. Huysmans, A. Neal and N. Voelkner, Critical Security Methods: New Frameworks for Analysis (New International Relations) (London: Routledge, 2014);Google Scholar
  19. B. Buzan and L. Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Peoples and Vaughan Williams, Critical Security Studies;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. K. Fierke, Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge: Polity, 2007); Krause and Williams, Critical Security Studies;Google Scholar
  21. M. Salter and C. E. Mutlu, Research Methods in Critical Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013).Google Scholar
  22. 14.
    J. Huysmans, Security Unbound: Enacting Democratic Limits (London and New York: Routledge, 2014).Google Scholar
  23. 16.
    On the distinction between explanation and understanding, see M. Hollis and S. Smith, ‘Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991): 393–410; Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990); ‘Two Stories about Structure and Agency’, Review of International Studies 20, no. 3 (1994): 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 17.
    For further discussion of the importance of ‘how possible questions’, see R. Doty, ‘Foreign Policy as a Social Construction’, International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1993): 297–320;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. M. McDonald and M. Merefield, ‘How Was Howard’s War Possible? Winning the War of Position over Iraq’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 64, no. 2 (2010): 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 18.
    R. Kapur, ‘Human Rights in the 21st Century: Take a Walk on the Dark Side’, Sydney Law Review 28 (2006): 685.Google Scholar
  27. 19.
    See K. M. Fierke, ‘Breaking the Silence: Language and Method in International Relations’, in Language, Agency and Politics in a Constructed World, ed. F. Debrix (Armonk and London: M.E. Sharpe, 2003);Google Scholar
  28. K. M. Fierke and M. Nicholson, ‘Divided by a Common Language: Formal and Constructivist Approaches to Games’, Global Society 15, no. 1 (2001): 7–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. J. A. Tickner, ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists’, International Studies Quarterly 41, no. 4 (1997): 611–632;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. L. Hansen ‘From Camps to Conversations in Critical Studies’, International Studies Review 10, no.3 (2008): 652–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 20.
    Notable deviations to this trend are ‘realist constructivist’ and ‘constructivist realist’ approaches. See J. S. Barkin, ‘Realist Constructivism’, International Studies Review 5, no. 3 (2003): 325–342;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. P. T. Jackson and D. H. Nexon, ‘Constructivist Realism or Realist-Constructivism?’ International Studies Review 6, no. 2 (2004): 337–341.Google Scholar
  33. 21.
    A. Lefevere, ‘Discourses on Translation: Recent, Less Recent and to Come’, Target 5, no. 2 (1993): 299–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 23.
    The term ‘gate-keeping’ is also relevant here. See G. Sanghera and S. Thapar-Bjorkert, ‘Methodological Dilemmas: Gatekeepers and Positionality in Bradford’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 31, no. 3 (2008): 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 24.
    For further discussion on the power of writing histories and security, see D. Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998);Google Scholar
  36. R. L. Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  37. 26.
    K. Booth, ‘The Human Faces of Terror: Reflections in a Cracked Looking Glass’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1, no. 1 (2008): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 28.
    See T. Balzacq and S. Guzzini, ‘Introduction: What kind of theory — if any — is securitization?’, International Relations 29, no.1 (2015): 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 29.
    For some connection points, see C. Burger and T. Villumsen, ‘Beyond the Gap: Relevance, Fields of Practice and the Securitizing Consequences of (Democratic Peace) Research’, Journal of International Relations and Development 10, no. 4 (2007): 417–448;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. J. Hayes, ‘Identity and Securitisation in the Democratic Peace: The United States and the Divergence of Responses to India and Iran’s Nuclear Programmes’, International Studies Quarterly 53, no. 4 (2009): 977–999;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. N. Tschirgi, ‘Securitisation and Peace Building’, in Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding, ed. R. Mac Ginty (London: Routledge, 2013), 197–210.Google Scholar
  42. 30.
    For a full description of this framework, see B. Buzan, O. Wæver and J. deWilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998).Google Scholar
  43. 31.
    See N. G. Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  44. 32.
    For this critique, see T. Barkawi, ‘From War to Security: Security Studies, the Wider Agenda and the Fate of the Study of War’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 701–716;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O. N. Knudsen, ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritising Securitisation’, Security Dialogue 32, no. 3 (2001): 355–368. For rejoinders,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. see C. Aradau, ‘Security, War, Violence — The Politics of Critique: A Reply to Barkawi’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41, no. 1 (2012): 112–123;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. B. Buzan and O. Wæver, ‘Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically Untenable? The Copenhagen School Replies’, Review of International Studies 23, no. 2 (1997): 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 33.
    See O. Wæver, ‘Peace and Security: Two Evolving Concepts and Their Changing Relationship’, in Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century, eds Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring, Czeslaw Mesjasz, John Grin, Pal Dunay, Navnita Chadha Behera, Béchir Chourou, Patricia Kameri-Mbote and P. H. Liotta, Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, Vol. 3 (Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer-Verlag, 2008).Google Scholar
  49. 34.
    O. P. Richmond, Peace in International Relations (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Also see V. Jabri, War and the Transformation of Global Politics (London: Palgrave, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 35.
    It is not possible to outline all of the critiques levelled against the Copenhagen School. For an excellent overview of the so-called second-generation debates, see T. Balzacq, ed., Securitisation Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London: Routledge, 2011); on the differences between the Copenhagen School and the Welsh School,Google Scholar
  52. see R. Floyd, ‘Towards a Consequentialist Evaluation of Security: Bringing Together the Copenhagen and Welsh Schools of Security Studies’, Review of International Studies 33, no. 2 (2007): 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 36.
    J. Milliken, ‘The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods’, European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 2 (1999): 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 37.
    Among others, see T. Barkawi and M. Laffey, ‘The Post-Colonial Moment in Security Studies’, Review of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2006): 329–352;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. P. Biligin, ‘The “Western-Centrism” of Security Studies: “Blind Spot” or Constitutive Practice?’ Security Dialogue 41, no. 6 (2010): 615–622; ‘Thinking Past Western IR?’ Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5–23;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. D. Chandler, Empire in Denial: The Politics of State Building (London: Pluto Press, 2006);Google Scholar
  57. V. Jabri, ‘Peacebuilding, the Local and the International: A Colonial or Post-Colonial Rationality?’ Peacebuilding 1, no. 1 (2013): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 39.
    Silencing is a very complex topic that cannot be fully addressed here. For an excellent overview, see G. K. Bhambra and R. Shilliam, Silencing Human Rights: Critical Engagements with a Contested Project (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009);Google Scholar
  59. L. Hansen, ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29, no. 2 (2000): 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 40.
    See, among others, Tickner, ‘You Just Don’t Understand’, 611–632; C. Enloe, ‘“Gender” Is Not Enough: The Need for Feminist Consciousness’, International Affairs 80, no. 1 (2004): 95–97; Nimo’s War, Emma’s War: Making Feminist Sense of the Iraq War (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2010);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. D. Pankhurst, Gendered Peace: Women’s Struggles for Post-War Justice and Reconciliation (New York, London: Routledge, 2008);Google Scholar
  62. C. Cockburn, ‘Gender Relations as Causal in Militarization and War’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 12, no. 2 (2010): 139–157;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. M. Zalewski, ‘Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters with(in) International Relations’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 9, no. 2 (2007): 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 41.
    G. C. Spivak, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 271–313.Google Scholar
  65. 42.
    On this point, see N. Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonisation and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 43.
    R. K. Ashley and R. B. J. Walker, ‘Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissent Thought in International Studies’, International Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1990): 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 44.
    For conceptions of the ‘local’ in peace studies, see O. P. Richmond, A Post-Liberal Peace (London and New York: Routledge, 2012);Google Scholar
  68. R. Mac Ginty, ‘Indigenous Peace-Making versus the Liberal Peace’, Cooperation and Conflict 43, no. 2 (2008): 139–163. For an overview of ‘everyday’ security,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. see J. Huysmans, ‘What’s in an Act? On Security Speech Acts and Little Security Nothings’, Security Dialogue 42, no. 4–5 (2011): 371–383;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. X. Guillaume, ‘Resistance and the International: The Challenge of the Everyday’, International Political Sociology 5, no. 4 (2011): 459–462;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. X. Guillaume and O. Kessler, ‘Everyday Practices of International Relations: People in Organisations’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 15, no. 1 (2012): 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 45.
    O. P. Richmond, ‘De-Romanticising the Local, De-Mystifying the International: Hybridity in Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands’, The Pacific Review 24, no. 1 (2011): 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 46.
    V. Bajc, ‘Introduction: Security Meta-Framing: A Cultural Logic of an Ordering Practice’, in Security and Everyday Life, V. Bajc and W. de Lint (New York and Oxon: Routledge, 2011), 1.Google Scholar
  74. 47.
    See E. Newman and O. P. Richmond, Challenges to Peace Building: Managing Spoilers during Conflict Resolution (New York: United Nations University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
  75. 49.
    On this point, it should be noted that many scholars have problematized the reliance on democratic and Western settings when it comes to the study of (de)securitization. See C. Wilkinson, ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable outside Europe?’ Security Dialogue 38, no. 1 (2007): 5–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. A. Collins, ‘Securitization, Frankenstein’s Monster and Malaysian Education’, The Pacific Review 18, no. 4 (2005): 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 50.
    E. M. Cousens, ‘Introduction’, in Peacebuilding as Politics: Cultivating Peace in Fragile Societies, E. M. Cousens and C. Kamur with K. Wermester (Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner, 2011).Google Scholar
  78. 52.
    R. Christie, ‘Critical Voices and Human Security: To Endure, To Engage or To Critique’, Security Dialogue 41, no. 2 (2010): 171. For an overview of the promises and limitations of human security,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. see R. Paris, ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’ International Security 26, no. 2 (2001): 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 53.
    See L. Amoore and M. de Goede, Risk and the War on Terror (London: Routledge, 2008);Google Scholar
  81. C. Aradau and R. Van Munster, Politics of Catastrophe: Genealogies of the Unknown (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2011).Google Scholar
  82. 54.
    See A. Leander, ‘The Power to Construct International Security: On the Significance of Private Military Companies’, Millennium Journal of International Studies 33, no. 3 (2005): 803–826;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. P. W. Singer, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2003).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Faye Donnelly 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faye Donnelly

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations