| 【美】斯科特·豪格著马津京译.气候变化与美国国家安全部门:气候变化问题的安全化[J].国际安全研究,2016,(3):90-113 |
| 气候变化与美国国家安全部门:气候变化问题的安全化 |
| Climate Change and the US Security Sector: Securitization of Climate Change |
| 投稿时间：2016-01-23 修订日期：2016-04-04 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 气候变化 安全 安全化 美国气候变化问题 建构主义 哥本哈根学派 |
| 英文关键词: climate change security securitization United States constructivist |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1844 |
| 全文下载次数: 1035 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 通过分析安全研究领域中人们普遍采用的几种建构主义安全化研究理论,来解读美国气候变化问题安全化的过程,可以发现:在诠释气候变化问题的安全化过程这个问题上,以实践为核心的社会科学理论或分析性框架比注重话语分析的社会科学理论或分析性框架更加有效。强调将实践上的变化作为成功构建安全的标准,这就将目标指向了如何将科学认识加以社会构建这一理论工作。把安全化当做一种更为普遍的认识构建过程的一个具体案例,这将可能将我们导向一种理论的改良,这种改良的理论所要描述的是一个更为广大的由行为主体和网络构成的整体构架,一个随时间推移产生的新兴现象的知识演变过程,一个文件与言论发挥多重作用的复杂话语体系。此外,要想更好地理解气候变化问题在国家层面上的安全化进程,一个很有价值的做法就是进行比较案例研究,特别是同以中国为代表的国家进行对比,因为中国在气候政策决策上推行的是一种经济发展框架。中美在气候政策方面的关系缓和推动了2015年巴黎气候大会的召开,这一事例将为比较案例研究提供一个有趣的框架。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| This preliminary study traces how climate change came to be viewed as a security issue in the United States through a review of policy documents and reports prepared for and by the U.S. security sector. The paper draws upon the ideas of constructivist schools of security studies to provide an analytical framework for understanding the meaning of the securitization process as it has occurred in the United States. It then reflects upon the adequacy of those frameworks to interpret the securitization of climate change. In the U.S., new knowledge of the phenomenon of climate change was first constructed in the research sector, in the fields of meteorology and atmospheric science. Environmental and Earth sciences then became a locus of research, and climate change first entered security discourse as a topic of environmental protection. As the implications of climate change and its potential impacts on water resources, food production, disease, infrastructure and human migration came to the attention of the security sector, this knowledge stimulated an internal discourse, where each new document functioned both as a new securitization statement and as a policy response to prior documents in a chain of discourse. Actors in this securitization process included not only “speakers” making a securitization claim (knowledge claim) and “audiences” that accept or reject a claim. It importantly included actors who were instrumental in translating knowledge between research and security sectors. This brief consideration suggests that social science theories that center on practice are more robust than those that center on discourse for interpreting the securitization of climate change. Improved analytic frameworks need to better account for actors whose role is to transfer and translate knowledge from one sector to another. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|