Why is there no securitisation theory in the Korean nuclear crisis?
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Yoon, Seongwon | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-09-04T07:19:27Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-09-04T07:19:27Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2023-07-21 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019-05 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0951-2748 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/189730 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Despite the fact that the Korean nuclear crisis is one of the most protracted security issues in the world, the research analysing the crisis from the perspective of securitisation theory is curiously absent. This article attempts to pin down some distinguishing features of South Korea's securitisation of the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, thereby investigating why one rarely sees the implications of securitisation theory in the way that the Copenhagen School theorists would suggest. Borrowing the key components of securitisation theory-existential threats, referent objects and extraordinary measures-this article suggests three elusive characteristics of the South Korean actors' speech acts as sources highlighting the dilemma. To make the article's arguments clearer, I hold Floyd's classification of securitisation theory, which separated the securitisation process into two different stages: securitising move and security practice. While acknowledging the importance of the differences between illocution and perlocution in a securitisation process, this article takes this logic one step further by suggesting the limits of the perlocutionary effect in making the securitisation process complete. | - |
dc.language | 영어 | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS | - |
dc.title | Why is there no securitisation theory in the Korean nuclear crisis? | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Yoon, Seongwon | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/09512748.2018.1476401 | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85052082947 | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 000468618300004 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | PACIFIC REVIEW, v.32, no.3, pp.336 - 364 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | PACIFIC REVIEW | - |
dc.citation.title | PACIFIC REVIEW | - |
dc.citation.volume | 32 | - |
dc.citation.number | 3 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 336 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 364 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.type.docType | 정기학술지(Article(Perspective Article포함)) | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 1 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | ssci | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Area Studies | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | International Relations | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Area Studies | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | International Relations | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | SECURITIZATION THEORY | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | COPENHAGEN SCHOOL | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | SECURITY | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | POLITICS | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | DISCOURSE | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | AUDIENCE | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | AGENCY | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | POLICY | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Securitisation theory | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | securitisation dilemma | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | South Korea | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | North Korea | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | North Korea&apos | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | s nuclear threat | - |
dc.identifier.url | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09512748.2018.1476401 | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
222, Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, Korea+82-2-2220-1365
COPYRIGHT © 2021 HANYANG UNIVERSITY.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.