Existential security and the governance challenge: Confronting the antinomies of securitisation

Nathan Sears was a key voice in bringing the study of existential threats to humanity field International Relations. His juxtaposition national and security, accounts failures by major powers adopt latter frame, engage core questions securitize these potentially catastrophic great power (ir)responsibility. work can also be read as provocative entry point discussion governance challenge when security is at stake. It highlights tensions between necessity mobilizing resources, building consensus, creating legitimacy address doing so just equitable way that acknowledges unequal dynamics ‘speaking’ ‘doing’ security. This debate challenges some premises securitization theory. has enormous practical implications for addressing gravest our time. Sears' concern emerged from deep sense frustration genuine puzzlement failure Relations (IR) take them seriously. He spent early years his dissertation project – partly captured article he published this journal (Sears, 2020) largely on making case specific category caused human agency ought central field. forum already testament inroads had made persuading new generation scholars need work, even longer term ambition develop thinking strategies tragically cut short. I appreciate opportunity tribute with push forward agenda. The irony not lost chosen motivated its survival would among last such Philosophical debates about are proliferating elsewhere academic popular writings, others note. Similarly, found ready audience policy makers, being winner 2018 Global Affairs Canada's Policy Ideas Challenge competition. following year became Cadieux-Léger Fellow, prestigious prize used place foresight division while continued PhD research. Meanwhile, real-world developments nearly unimaginable began put series exclamation points urgency research agenda: nuclear war Ukraine fears escalation; rapidly accelerating climate change litany record heat storms, wildfires, melting ice sheets, warming oceans their accompanying impacts; unexpected leaps advanced AI, ago Nathan's IR colleagues treated highly speculative, now raising alarms most prominent creators (Future Life Institute, 2023; Kang, 2023). realism drove him Securitisation Theory best bring concerns field, but opposite reasons original proponents (Buzan et al., 1998). Existential humanity, argued, demand type macrosecuritisation “higher order securitisation” where “referent object” humankind universalist claims dangers legitimise extraordinary measures outside normal politics international relations 2022; Buzan & Wæver, 2009, 259). macrosecuritise, usual (often critical) focus securitisation success (cf. Ruzicka, 2019). Great found, condition means. highlighted dilemma pushed theory comfort zone critical reflection securitisations. forced confront uncomfortable possibility problems inherently related may justify or require securitisation. But necessitate engaging who have relationships those attempt speak asking audiences thereby empowered, assessing consequence “humanity” invoked referent object (e.g. Hansen, 2000; Sundaram 2022). dilemmas up work's invitation engage. Hedley Bull, disenchanted Cold War superpowers' sustain détente act “nuclear trustees” they chance late 1970s, characterised “Great Irresponsibles” (Bull, 1980). (2022) analysis repeated “macrosecuritisation” echo Bull's assessment. Like Nathan, committed Realist, held belief moral responsibility powerful. thesis rested, way, status inextricably linked “to society whole”, Bull it, extension “existential” demanded it. idea interest systemic stability not, course, limited Realists. Nearly all branches posit leading (who usually primary beneficiaries current system) manage support provision collective goods and, varying degrees, bind themselves rules responsibilities maintain (Bukovansky 2012; Ikenberry, 2017; Morgenthau, 1978, 24; Waltz, 1979: 194–210). Even constructivists how orders negotiated, resisted contested recognise claiming recognition goes hand pursuing order-building goals (Loke, 2016). commitment, however, embodies contradictions. On one hand, Realism led marshal necessary material capabilities overcome sources rivalries that, least part, destructive logic. thus particularly interested leaders possessing authority “speak” “do” macrosecurity succeeded replacing narratives other macrosecuritisations mean empowering imbuing special rights scope legitimate action very actors global critics worry about. One simply there little historical evidence relied upon seriously, especially over time Brown, 2004; If anything, recent scholarship an equally common counter tendency thwart attempts emerging middle promote more, alternative, collectively responsible behaviour institutional arrangements Bernstein, 2020; Bukovansky Gaskarth, Loke, many discussions resulting variation “dependent variable” almost always fails. More critically, successful purport but, doing, silence communities likely suffering insecurity. ignore voices (Hansen, 2022) reproduce differentials, inequalities, racist patriarchal structures, genocidal indifference. worried well Belfield's contribution here. These antinomies posed legacy highlight stakes first count, arguments compelling, remain prescient. empirical structure alone neither self-evident nor sufficient drive overwhelmingly supports premise active construction required. Indeed, problematique understood over, under, practices removal results. default, greatly troubled Nathan. contributions was, juxtaposing shift attention frame. Macrosecuritisations appropriate necessary, anthropogenic often self-evident. Thus, securitising “speak”, frames prove exceedingly difficult overcome. AI has, since death, become textbook example. While jury still out exactly what kind threat poses, we witnessing expected. wrote US-AI strategy fundamentally aims “supremacy” 2022, 197–203), quoting 2019 Artificial Intelligence Strategy's explicit goal technology means “ensure enduring competitive military advantage against threaten safety” (US Department Defense, 2019, 5). US military's embrace premised competition UK European seem driven relative decline China developed ambitious world leader variety strategic purposes 200). contrasts industry leaders' own warnings lawmakers. As Sam Altman, chief executive OpenAI, told Congressional hearing recently: “I think if wrong, it go quite wrong. And want vocal that… We government prevent happening” (Kang, In lieu macrosecuritisation, seven US-based companies entered into voluntary agreement might reflecting multiple framings security: safeguards privacy, democracy rights), existential. Most analysts agree will effect (Shear statement White House notes consultations “voluntary commitments” two dozen allies several initiatives safety shared principles (White House, Yet, corporate “speaking” macrosecurity, only follow through teeth nationally securitises using inevitably ramp China; bars citizens investments financial transactions Chinese working quantum computing technologies, including semiconductors. both countries continuing development (The Guardian, Britain EU plan similar restrictions. cases examined control atomic energy biological weapons mark systematic responses calls programme failed beyond helping understand conditions under which accept moves. view calling things weapons, example “amenable (Ruzicka, 373). clearly catching on, prominently change. Here, originators theory, Ole much career “ideally should dealt terms”, securitised, because though “dark hope” (Wæver, identifying constituted step, rich history complex occurred cases. However, measurement “success” metric intense exchanges appropriateness consequences alternative arrangements. share Belfield logical agenda reflect further unpredictable ways evolved partial occurred, critically consider futures. debated change, 1980s seen vastly shifting (Dalby, 2020). That more produced protection change's source acute conflict, migrations displacements, scarcity than mobilising societal transformations required decarbonisation mitigating remedying harms. experience shifted, too discursive moves towards commonly invoking wide range across positionalities political spectrum. here noted could evident. proliferation practice “emergency” discourse illustrates tension mirrors general logic Who gets issue stake, emergency claim service survival. Patterson al. (2021, 841) write: Emergency convey avoid destruction environment … opening possibilities consensual sustainability [They] resonate patterns inclusion/exclusion. demanding sweeping afford coverage unpopular actions poor and/or minority lose oriented quick fixes. Specifically, “climate emergency” frame “empower technocratic elite undermine plurality creativity justice well-being bound sustainability. Deploying emergency-as-strategy normalise pre-emptive close down otherwise unpalatable options” (Patterson 2021, 845). abstract debate. Concerns default planetary solar radiation management (a form geoengineering) playing real They geoengineering's uncertain, possibly self-undermining effects. so, attack worse, world's geoengineering acting unilaterally absent “problematic structures currently exist institutions regions” (Táíwò Talati, 2022: 13). complex: explicitly increased “risks militarisation (Stephens 2021) incorporating relevant knowledge voices, example, south, generally inclusive decision “for” “against” arguing assiduously speaking desecuritisation undertheorised Despite saw growing around him, remained hopeful see taking increase reputation process. rivalries”, closing sentences dissertation, “work humankind”. Perhaps, offer another forward: “repoliticisation” brings back arena, motivate craved create force space appreciated provocation offers middle, argue (Inoue, 2018; Kramarz 2021; Paterson important loss all. None. Steven Bernstein Distinguished Professor Environmental Sustainability Governance University Toronto co-directs Lab. interests include institutions, politics, studies. supervisor.