YCISS Research
Permanent URI for this collection
The Centre for International and Security Studies is a research unit of York University dedicated to the study of international peace and security issues.
Browse
Browsing YCISS Research by Author "89b4cdf77278b40776b6ecd4883bcf65"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Critical Theory and Security Studies(YCISS, 1996-02) Krause, KeithSecurity studies has been among the last bastions of neorealist orthodoxy in International Relations to accept critical, or even theoretically-sophisticated, challenges to its problematic. Recent polemical exchanges in the security studies literature have, however, at least linked the term "critical theory" with security studies, and although they do not necessarily advance the debate, they at least raise the question: what is a critical approach to security studies? My goal in this paper is not to invoke a new orthodoxy of "critical security studies" or to participate in polemical recriminations, but to illustrate what a critical engagement with issues and questions that have been taken as the subject matter of security studies involves. I do this in several steps: (a) a review of the (brief) debate in security studies concerning the contributions of "critical" scholarship; (b) a presentation of the intellectual "foundations" of critical approaches to International Relations; (c) an overview of current research within "critical security studies" that illustrates its ability to generate a challenging and productive research agenda; and (d) a discussion of the intellectual and disciplining power of mainstream security scholarship, and the difficulties this poses for critical challenges. What I will not do is present a critique of traditional research and theory in security studies, except to highlight some of the conclusions of this critique. Since one of the main accusations levelled against critical theory (at least in International Relations) is that it cannot get "beyond critique," I intend to demonstrate that one can find lurking in the interstices of the discipline a wide range of critical scholarship and research that is "about" security (and its core subject matter), but which its authors, or the discipline, refuses to label as such. Simply bringing together these perspectives makes the challenges to orthodoxy more clear, and signals that critical approaches to security studies are more than a passing fad or the idiosyncratic obsession of a few scholars.Item Open Access Middle Eastern States in the Global Military Order(YCISS, 1994-02) Krause, KeithMore than three-quarters of the weapons traded since 1970 have gone to the developing world, but there are few studies or rudimentary comparative theories that make sense of this process from the recipient state's perspective. Scholars who study the "global arms transfer and production system" have little understanding of the external and internal factors that shape defence and security policies in the developing world.2 Perhaps this was simply an inevitable part of the process of developing a theoretically-informed, well-supported literature; or perhaps analysts who study global arms transfers (as this author has done extensively) have systematically ignored important questions and issues. But it is appropriate, especially in a time of change and turbulence, to reexamine the way in which scholars have studied the arms trade and (intentionally or inadvertently) not given certain questions sustained research attention. In particular, I want to draw attention to four broad issues that must be addressed to strengthen our understanding of the processes and dynamics at work in the global arms transfer and production system.Item Open Access Redefining International Peace and Security? The Discourses and Practices of Multilateral Security Activity(YCISS, 1994-03) Krause, KeithThis paper attempts to make a modest contribution to building a research agenda in two ways. It is organized around three "optics" (or logics) of "international peace and security," which serve as a basis for organizing and understanding the various stances that have been adopted. The three stances can be provisionally called international security as "stability," as "order," and as "justice." These terms of course resonate with other meanings in International Relations, and they are not the only way in which these positions could be characterized. But these three categories serve as a useful basis for a discussion of three sets of questions or issues in the debate on "new concepts of security," each of which in turn invoke ontological, epistemological, and prescriptive claims: what are the central tenets and foundation of its security weltanschauung (security from what, for whom, to protect what, and by what means)?; what sort of prima facie evidence exists that the concepts and practices of security in the multilateral arena might be changing (and how would one study this question)?; and what emerges from this account as the desirable scope of multilateral action (i.e., what are its prescriptive commitments)? Although these questions are couched in theoretical terms, this is not primarily a conceptual paper; many such contributions to the debate have already been published, and my purpose is to move towards a research program that could address some of the issues these raise. The analysis instead helps orient the study of changing multilateral practices surrounding security, and offers a preliminary assessment of the current evidence.