The Securitization of COVID-19: Three Political Dilemmas (original) (raw)

Beginning December 2019 in Wuhan in China's Hubei province, Coronavirus (Covid-19) has overwhelmed the healthcare systems and affecting education, travels, events and the economies worldwide. Governments all over have taken or bracing themselves to take extraordinary measures to contain the threat. In some countries, the measures taken to contain the epidemic appear as putting the nation under a state of siege. Some governments are adapting rather extreme measures-complete lock-down of the cities, the provinces and even the country itself, school closures, travel ban, cancellation of flights. Questions are being asked about how much freedom we are prepared to give up, for how long and onto whose hands? The paper argues that with threats and vulnerabilities transcending national boundaries and challenging most advanced knowledge and information systems in this era of intense globalization, the need for harsh and often draconian measures can hardly be over emphasized. At the same time there could be problems and unwelcome consequences in putting too much power in the hands of the governments dealing with the threat for an indefinite period of time. In view of this, the securitization framework as put forth by the Copenhagen School could be a better tool to deal with situations of unexpected crises such as what SARS epidemic proved it to be or what Covid-19 would inevitably entail BACKGROUND Beginning December 2019 in Wuhan in China's Hubei province, a new epidemic-Coronavirus (Covid-19) has metamorphosed itself into a major threat overwhelming the healthcare systems and affecting education, travels, events and the economies at large.

Governments, de facto authorities and rebel-governed areas aspiring to “counterstate sovereignty” all have to cope with the pandemic threat posed by COVID-19. Both official militaries and armed non-state groups find themselves at the centre of emergency plans in response to the pandemic, declaring and enforcing social distancing measures such as lockdowns and curfews. The case of Yemen shows how in conflict-torn or fragmented countries, governments, de facto authorities and rebels may show a convergent, although not coordinated, response to COVID-19.

Israel adopted some of the social and technological changes brought about by the Coronavirus crisis in 2020, but in regards to the core question of national identity, the preliminary phase of the response to the Coronavirus seems to further support its existing identity: a Jewish, Zionist state that relies on a technologyprone, forward-leaning security establishment.; thus, protecting its core value of providing physical security, while deflecting ontological challenges to its sense of self.

The arrival of people at the Southern shores of Europe has become a major issue for the European Union and those Member States at the rims of the Mediterranean. The measures implemented and laws enacted by the European Union have mostly a security and military tenor. This Discussion Paper analyses how migration has become a security issue in Europe and the response that governments have given to the current situation.

the publication aims to highlight some of the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic in various states and societies across the Middle East. Brandon Friedman (ed.), June 2020, pp. 19-22.

This article seeks to contribute to debates about how regional arrangements construct and respond to threat agendas. It does so by using the literature on the concept of securitization to explore the processes through which the African Union (AU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have dealt with contemporary transnational challenges. After providing an overview of the Copenhagen School's (CS) understanding of securitization, we examine the main problems and limitations that emerge when attempting to apply the concept of securitization to regional arrangements in the developing world. The article explores in particular the extent to which the AU and ASEAN have securitized the transnational challenges on their agendas. We conclude that in both cases the impact of security culture as well as unresolved conceptual and methodological issues raise significant questions when seeking to apply securitization theory outside of Europe.

Drawing on Michel Foucault’s governmentality approach and focusing on the US case, this paper analyses whether different climate-security discourses have led to different political implications and policies in the country