Naval War College

About: Naval War College is a education organization based out in Newport, Rhode Island, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: International law & China. The organization has 233 authors who have published 519 publications receiving 6652 citations. The organization is also known as: United States Naval War College & U.S. Naval War College.

Strategic partners or an emerging alliance? India and the United States in an era of global power transition

Abstract: The Indian Ocean region (IOR) is on the frontline of a global shift in the balance of power involving such countries as China, the United States, and India. Underpinning this transition is the grow...

Clausewitz and Small Wars: The Conceptual Origins of the ‘Remarkable Trinity’

Abstract: Carl von Clausewitz’s life and career were marked by modest achievement and great frustration. Despite serving three quarters of his life in the Prussian and (briefly) Russian armies, he was denied...

Securitising Covid-19? The Politics of Global Health and the Limits of the Copenhagen School

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked controversies over health security strategies adopted in different countries. The urge to curb the spread of the virus has supported policies to restrict mobility and to build up state surveillance, which might induce authoritarian forms of government. In this context, the Copenhagen School has offered an analytical repertoire that informs many analyses in the fields of critical security studies and global health. Accordingly, the securitisation of COVID-19 might be necessary to deal with the crisis, but it risks unfolding discriminatory practices and undemocratic regimes, with potentially enduring effects. In this article, we look into controversies over pandemic-control strategies to discuss the political and analytical limitations of securitisation theory. On the one hand, we demonstrate that the focus on moments of rupture and exception conceals security practices that unfold in ongoing institutional disputes and over the construction of legitimate knowledge about public health. On the other hand, we point out that securitisation theory hinders a genealogy of modern apparatuses of control and neglects violent forms of government which are manifested not in major disruptive acts, but in the everyday dynamics of unequal societies. We conclude by suggesting that an analysis of the bureaucratic disputes and scientific controversies that constitute health security knowledges and practices enables critical approaches to engage with the multiple - and, at times, mundane - processes in which (in)security is produced, circulated, and contested.Alternate abstract:A pandemia de COVID-19 tem gerado controversias em torno das politicas de saude adotadas em diferentes paises. A necessidade de controlar a propagacao do virus tem sido usada como justificativa para medidas de restricao da mobilidade e para largos investimentos em dispositivos de vigilância, o que pode abrir espaco para formas nao democraticas de governo. Nesse contexto, a Escola de Copenhague tem oferecido o instrumental teorico que informa muitas das analises nos campos de estudos criticos de seguranca e saude global. Segundo esta perspectiva, a securitizacao da COVID-19 agiliza as respostas a crise, mas guarda carater discriminatorio, contribuindo ainda para o avanco de politicas autoritarias potencialmente duradouras. Neste artigo, exploramos os debates recentes em torno das politicas de contencao da pandemia para abordar os limites politicos e analiticos da teoria da securitizacao. Por um lado, demonstramos que o foco em momentos de ruptura e politicas de excecao negligencia praticas de seguranca que se desenvolvem no dia a dia das disputas institucionais e na construcao de conhecimento especializado sobre saude publica. Por outro, apontamos que a proposta da Escola de Copenhague impede uma genealogia dos aparatos modernos de seguranca e ignora formas violentas de governo que nao se manifestam em grandes atos disruptivos, mas na rotina de sociedades desiguais. Sugerimos, por fim, que a analise das disputas burocraticas e controversias cientificas que constituem os conhecimentos e praticas dos campos de seguranca e saude permite que abordagens criticas se engajem com os multiplos e, por vezes, mundanos processos pelos quais a (in)seguranca e produzida, disseminada e contestada.