What has it meant to be labeled the "second-front" in the "global war on terror"? Have Southeast Asian states accepted that the primary threat their countries face is Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist violence, or are other security concerns deemed more pressing? This study investigates threat perceptions in four Southeast Asian countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore. It probes the extent to which their security concerns align with those of Washington, together with their preferred means for dealing with the phenomenon of terrorist violence. The central findings are that, in all four countries, the U.S. counterterrorist security agenda has shaped security perceptions as well as security behavior, though to a greater extent in the Philippines and Singapore than in Indonesia and Malaysia. However, the most important effect in Southeast Asia of this change in the U.S. security priority after 9/11 has been sociopolitical in nature, even where an individual government might not perceive the threat from terrorism to be the major security challenge that it faces. In each of the four states, involvement in the U.S. decision to give overwhelming attention to counterterrorist action has sharpened the focus on long-standing security concerns, especially those connected with the security of the political regime or unity of society. In sum, these countries' domestic concerns interact in complex and subtle ways with their security relationship with the United States, as well as affecting the methods that the individual governments have used to deal with actual or potential terrorist violence inside their countries.

This book examines the gender dimensions of a wide array of national and international security challenges. The volume examines gender dynamics in ten issue areas in both the traditional and human security sub-fields: armed conflict, post-conflict, terrorism, military organizations, movement of people, development, environment, humanitarian emergencies, human rights, governance. The contributions show how gender affects security and how security problems affect gender issues. Each chapter also examines a common set of key factors across the issue areas: obstacles to progress, drivers of progress and long-term strategies for progress in the 21st century. The volume develops key scholarship on the gender dimensions of security challenges and thereby provides a foundation for improved strategies and policy directions going forward. The lesson to be drawn from this study is clear: if scholars, policymakers and citizens care about these issues, then they need to think about both security and gender. This will be of much interest to students of gender studies, security studies, human security and International Relations in general.

Why is it that certain threat images appear on the political agenda and others do not? The issue of how a political agenda is set has been studied in a series of different contexts and with the aid of any number of different theoretical approaches. Man.

Sets out a comprehensive framework of analysis for security studies, examining the distinctive character and dynamics of security in five sectors: military, political, economic, environmental, and societal. It rejects traditionalists' case for restricting security in one sector, arguing that security is a particular type of politics applicable to a wide range of issues, and offers a constructivist operational method for distinguishing the process of securitization from that of politicization. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

Why do transnational advocacy campaigns on environmental, health, human rights or humanitarian causes sometimes (but not always) frame these problems as security issues? This is an important question because there is an under-analyzed assumption made by some transnational advocacy networks (TANs) and securitization studies scholars that framing an issue as a security threat has an overall positive effect on convincing states to take actions in addressing transnational social problems. The lack of systematic comparison across cases limits our ability to reveal the advocates' motivations in adopting security frames and the contrasting effects that securitization might have at various stages of advocacy campaigns. It is crucial to address this question as it will help us better understand the sources of transnational advocacy campaigns' influence over states as well as the inner dynamics of advocacy strategies. The study conducts a systematic comparative analysis of thirty-eight transnational advocacy campaigns to test whether the assumed correlation between using security frames and reaching advocacy success would hold when analyzed comparatively. The study then takes a closer look at the question by conducting a comparative analysis of nine cases and an illustrative analysis of a securitized campaign (Conflict Diamonds) to address the similarities between securitization and other acts of framing as well as to shed light onto the inner dynamics of securitization. Based on this analysis, the study argues that rather than being unique and correlated to transnational advocacy success, as argued by the literature, security frames operate like any other frame, and in order for such framing decisions to translate into advocacy success they need to coexist with an enabling strategic environment. The study also provides insights into the conditions that shape advocates' framing choices. In addition to the widely cited role of the broader political context, the study also finds the advocacy networks' own dynamics as well as the advocates' previous experiences and their fields of expertise to be important in shaping their framing choices. The study also argues that advocates engage in multivocalization, which refers to the inclination of the advocates to invoke multiple frames simultaneously to reach out not only to targets of influence but also to potential allies with the goal of strengthening their networks. The analysis also reveals that the motivations behind adopting security frames are more complex than appreciated by the securitization literature in two ways: (i) a security frame does not have to be tailored toward states or security organizations, it can also be crafted to get the attention and the cooperation of non-state actors; and (ii) a security frame might appeal to an audience not necessarily because of the security threat it voices but because of the non-security concerns it silences.

This open access book investigates the complexity and the modalities of securitization of migration and border control at the EU level. It discusses and compares how different EU institutions and agencies have been deploying different logics of security, e.g. humanitarianism or management of risk, while framing increased migratory flows and so called migration crisis as a security problem. The book argues that the (re)development of EU migration and border control policies in response to increased migratory flows of 2015 have revealed an increasingly tangled nature of securitization of migration in the EU. This is reflected in the intertwining of security logics where migrants and human mobility tend to be securitized through different, sometimes multiple, interpretative lenses at different stages of policy framing. From a theoretical point of view, the book develops a fresh analytical perspective that further contributes to burgeoning discussion on securitization theory. By bridging the literature on policy framing and securitization it makes a significant contribution to the debates on both securitization and migration. As such this book is of great interest to students, academics, policy makers and all those working in the fields of EU politics, migration, security, and international relations.

Appendix I - Agenda

The Energy Transition, the inevitable shift away from cheap, centralized, largely fossil-based energy systems, is one of the core challenges of our time. This book provides a coherent and novel insight into the nature of this challenge and possible strategies to accelerate and guide such transitions. It brings together prominent European scholars and practitioners from the fields of energy transition research and governance to draw attention to the current complex dynamics in the energy domain, and offer elegant and provocative explanations for current crises and lock-ins. They identify multiple energy transition pathways that emerge and increasingly compete, and emphasize the need and possibilities for novel governance. By analysing the complexity of energy transition processes and the difficulties in shifting to sustainable pathways, this text questions the extent to which actually governing energy transitions is already reality, just an illusion, or a bare necessity.

International efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons—rest upon foundations provided by global treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Over time, however, states have created a number of other mechanisms for organizing international cooperation to promote nonproliferation. Examples range from regional efforts to various worldwide export-control regimes and nuclear security summit meetings initiated by U.S. president Barack Obama. Many of these additional nonproliferation arrangements are less formal and have fewer members than the global treaties. International Cooperation on WMD Nonproliferation calls attention to the emergence of international cooperation beyond the core global nonproliferation treaties. The contributors examine why these other cooperative nonproliferation mechanisms have emerged, assess their effectiveness, and ask how well the different pieces of the global nonproliferation regime complex fit together. Collectively, the essayists show that states have added new forms of international cooperation to combat WMD proliferation for multiple reasons, including the need to address new problems and the entrepreneurial activities of key state leaders. Despite the complications created by the existence of so many different cooperative arrangements, this collection shows the world is witnessing a process of building cooperation that is leading to greater levels of activity in support of norms against WMD and terrorism.