Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Slovak Journal of Political Sciences

The Journal of University of Saint Cyril and Metodius in Trnava

4 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1335-9096
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Extraordinary Measures: Drone Warfare, Securitization, and the “War on Terror”

Scott Nicholas Romaniuk / Stewart Tristan Webb
Published Online: 2015-12-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sjps-2015-0012

Abstract

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles or “drones,” as part of the United States’ (US) targeted killing (TK) program dramatically increased after the War on Terror (WoT) was declared. With the ambiguous nature and parameters of the WoT, and stemming from the postulation of numerous low-level, niche-, and other securitizations producing a monolithic threat, US drone operations now constitute a vital stitch in the extensive fabric of US counterterrorism policy. This article employs the theories of securitization and macrosecuritization as discussed by Buzan (1991, 2006), and Buzan and Wæver (2009) to understand targeted killing, by means of weaponized drones, as an extraordinary measure according to the Copenhagen School’s interpretation. An overarching securitization and the use of the “security” label warrants the emergency action of targeted killing through the use of drones as an extraordinary measure. We argue that the WoT serves as a means of securitizing global terrorism as a threat significant enough to warrant the use of drone warfare as an extraordinary use of force. By accepting the WoT as a securitization process we can reasonably accept that the US’ response(s) against that threat are also securitized and therefore become extraordinary measures.

Používanie bezpilotných lietadiel alebo „Dronov“, ako súčasť amerického programu cieleného zabíjania (TK)“, sa dramaticky zvýšila vo vojne, ktorá bola vyhlásená proti teroru (War on Terror – WOT). V kontexte parametrov, povahe WOT, a vychádzajúc z rôznych postulátov a sekuritizácií, americké „drony“ predstavujú zásadný prvok v rozsiahlej štruktúre protiteroristickej politiky USA. Predkladaný článok využíva teórie sekuritizácie a makro-sekuritizácie, podľa Buzan (1991, 2006), a Buzan a Wæver (2009), ktoré tieto aktivity definujú ako cielené zabíjanie prostredníctvom ozbrojených dronov, v kontexte s výnimočným opatrením a to v súlade s výkladom kodanskej školy. Na druhej strane sa tieto „núdzové akcie“, ktoré sa vyznačujú cielením zabíjaním ospravedlňujú cez núdzové opatrenie a skrývania sa za tzv. „bezpečnostné záujmy“. V rámci tohto článku sa domnievame, že WOT slúži ako prostriedok sekuritizácie globálneho terorizmu, respektíve hrozbu ktorá dostatočne ospravedlňuje používanie „dronov“ ako mimoriadnej sily. V prípade, že budeme akceptovať WOT ako proces sekuritizácie, je možné pripustiť aj skutočnosť, že odpoveď (e) Spojených Štátov Amerických proti tomuto ohrozeniu budú sekuritizované a stanú sa mimoriadnymi opatreniami.

Keywords: Copenhagen School; existential threat; extraordinary measures; Security Theory (ST)

Kľúčové slová:: Kodanská škola; existenčná hrozba; mimoriadne opatrenia; bezpečnostné teórie

References

  • ABRAHAMENSE, R. & WILLIAMS, M. (2009). “Security Beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics,” International Political Sociology, 3(1): 1-17.Google Scholar

  • ABULOF, U. (2014). “Deep Securitization and Israel’s ‘Demographic Demon,’” International Political Sociology, 8: 396-415.Google Scholar

  • AL-HAJ, A. & BATRAWY, A. (2012). “US Drone Strikes In Yemen Spur Growing Anti-American Sentiment,” Associated Press.Google Scholar

  • AYOOB, M. (1997). “Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective,” in Krause, K. and Williams, M. (eds.), Critical Security Studies. London, UK: DCL Press.Google Scholar

  • BALDWIN, D. A. (1997). “The Concept of Security,” Review of International Studies, 23(1): 5-26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BALZACQ, T. (2005). “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience, and Context,” European Journal of International Relations, 11(2): 171-201.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BALZACQ, T., BASARAN, T., BIGO, D., GUITTET, E-P. & OLLSON, K. (2010). “Security Practices,” in Denemark, R. A. (ed.), International Studies Encyclopedia Online. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • BARTHWAL-DATTA, M. (2009). “Securitizing Threats without the State: A Case Study of Misgovernance as a Security Threat in Bangladesh,” Review of International Studies, 35(2): 277-300.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BOBBITT, P. (2008). Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

  • BUZAN, B. (1991). “New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty-First Century,” International Affairs,” 67(3): 431-51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BUZAN, B. (2006). “Will the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ be the New Cold War?” International Affairs, 82(6): 1101-18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BUZAN, B. & HANSEN, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • BUZAN, B. & WÆVER, O. (2009). “Macrosecuritization and Security Constellations: Reconsidering Scale in Securitization Theory,” Review of International Studies, 35: 253-76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BUZAN, B., WÆVER, O. & DE WILDE, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar

  • BYMAN, D. (2009). “Do Targeted Killings Work?,” Foreign Affairs, 85(2): 95-111.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • CABLE NEWS NETWORK (CNN) POLITICS. “US Airstrikes in Pakistan Called ‘Very Effective,’” Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

  • CONNOLLY, W. E. (1999). “Essentially Contested Concepts in Politics: Debates and Applications,” Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(3): 211-46.Google Scholar

  • COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COE) (September 1, 2011). “Ten Years of ‘Global War on Terror’ Undermined Human Rights – Also in Europe,” The Council of Europe Commissioner’s Human Rights Comment.Google Scholar

  • ERWIN, S. I., MAGNUSAN, S., PARSONS, D. & TADJDEH, Y. (2012). “Top Five Threats to National Security in the Coming Decade,” National Defense.Google Scholar

  • GARDNER, L. (2013). Killing Machine: The American Presidency in the Age of Drone Warfare. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar

  • GHOSH, T. K., PRELAS, M. A., VISWANATH, D. S. & LOYALKA, S. K. (2009). Science and Technology of Terrorism and Counterterrorism. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

  • GREENWALD, G. (2008). A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency. New York, NY: Three Rivers PressGoogle Scholar

  • GUZZINI, S. (2011). “Securitization as a Causal Mechanism,” Security Dialogue, 42(4-5): 329-41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • JACKSON, R. (2011). “Culture, Identity, and Hegemony: Continuity and (the Lack of) Change in US Counterterrorism Policy from Bush to Obama,” International Politics, 48: 390-411.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • KARYOTIS, G. (2007). “Securitization of Greek Terrorism and Arrest of the ‘Revolutionary Organization November 17,’” Cooperation and Conflict, 42(3): 271-93.Google Scholar

  • KELSTRUP, M. (2004). “Globalization and Social Insecurity: The Securitization of Terrorism and Competing Strategies for Global Governance,” in Guzzini, S. & Jung, D. (eds.), Contemporary Security Analysis and Copenhagen Peace Research. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • KILCULLEN, D. (2010). Counterinsurgency. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • LAFONTANT, A. (2013) “Byman Supports Military Drone Use,” The Dartmouth. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.Google Scholar

  • LASMAR, J. M. (2010). “Managing Great Power in the Post-Cold War World: Old Rules New Game? The Case of the Global War on Terror,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Theory vs. Policy? Connecting Scholars and Practitioners, New Orleans Hilton Riverside Hotel, The Loews New Orleans Hotel, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar

  • LÉONARD, S. & KAUNERT, C. (2011). “Reconceptualizing the Audience in Securitization Theory,” in Balzacq, T. (ed.), Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • MAGNUSSON, J. (2012). “Death from Above: Securitization, Risk Management, and the Framing of US Drone Strikes by the Obama Administration,” Unpublished Thesis. Uppsala University, Department of Government, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar

  • MASTNY, V. (2006). “Imagining War in Europe: Soviet Strategic Planning,” in Mastny, V. Holtsmark, S. S. & Wenger, A. (eds.), War Plans and Alliances in the Cold War: Threat Perceptions in the East and West (CSS Studies in Security and International Relations). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • MASTNY, V., HOLTSMARK, S. S. & WENGER, A. (2006). War Plans and Alliances in the Cold War: Threat Perceptions in the East and West (CSS Studies in Security and International Relations). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • MCCRISKEN, T. (2011). “Ten Years On: Obama’s War on Terrorism in Rhetoric and Practice,” International Affairs, 87(4): 781-801.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MCDONALD, M. (2008). “Securitization and the Construction of Security,” European Journal of International Relations, 14(4): 563-87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MCMANUS, D. (2009). “US Drone Attacks in Pakistan ‘Backfiring,’ Congress Told,” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar

  • NEW AMERICAN FOUNDATION (2013). “The Year of the Drone: An Analysis of US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2013,” Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • RECORD, J. (December, 2003). “Bounding the Global War on Terrorism,” Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • ROE, P. (2008). “Actor, Audience(s), and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK’s Decision to Invade Iraq,” Security Dialogue, 39(6): 615-35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • ROSTKER, B. (2000). “Information Paper: Iraq’s Scud Ballistic Missiles,” Iraq Watch, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • ROTH, A. L. (October 2, 2012). “US Drones and the ‘Global War on Terrorism,” Global Research: Center for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal, QC.Google Scholar

  • SAPOLSKY, H. M., GHOLZ, E. & KAUFMAN, A. (1999). “Security Lessons from the Cold War,” Foreign Affairs, 78(4): 77-89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • SOBLIC, J. P. (2009). US vs. Them: Conservatism in the Age of Nuclear Terror. London, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

  • STRITZEL, H. (2007). “Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond,” European Journal of International Relations, 13(3): 357-83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • TARDY, T. & WINDMAR, E. (2003). “The EU and Peace Operations,” Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

  • UNITED STATES (US) DEPARTMENT OF STATE (DOS) (2010). “The United States in UN Peacekeeping: Strengthening UN Peacekeeping and Conflict Prevention Efforts,” Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • VUORI, J. A. (2008). “Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders,” European Journal of International Relations, 14(1): 65-99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • WÆVER, O., BUZAN, B., KELSTRUP, M. & LEMAITRE, P. (1993). Identity, Migration, and the New Security Agenda in Europe. London, UK: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

  • WÆVER, O. (1998). “Securitization and Desecuritization,” in Lipschutz, R. D. (ed.), On Security. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

  • WÆVER, O. (2004). “Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New Schools in Security Theory and the Origins between Core and Periphery,” Montréal, QC: International Studies Association (ISA) Conference.Google Scholar

  • WILKINSON, C. (2007). “The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: IS Securitization Theory Usable Outside Europe?” Security Dialogue, 38(5): 5-25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • WILLIAMS, B. G. (2010). “The CIA’s Covert Predator Drone War in Pakistan, 2004-2010: The History of an Assassination Campaign,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 33(10): 871-92.Google Scholar

  • WILLIAMS, M. C. (2003). “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly, 47(4): 511-31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • ZALMAN, A. & CLARKE, J. (June 24, 2009). “The Global War on Terror: A Narrative in Need of a Rewrite,” Ethics and International Affairs, 23(2).Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-12-16

Published in Print: 2015-07-01


Citation Information: Slovak Journal of Political Sciences, ISSN (Online) 1335-9096, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sjps-2015-0012.

Export Citation

© 2015 Scott Nicholas Romaniuk et al., published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in