DUBLINCITYUNIVERSITY

Weareenteringa
postinterventionary,
resilienceworld.Discuss.
LG233InternationalSecurityandConflict

AcademicYear2015/2016,SemesterOne
Lecturer:DrGezimVisoka
StudentID:14373271
WordCount(includingbibliography):3052

Introduction

In the face ofourgrowingawarenessofcomplexity,resilienceseems

tobeanincreasinglyubiquitousconcept.Chandler2014,p.47

The purpose of thisessayistodiscusswhether ashifthastakenplacewithintheinternational

security paradigm, and if as a result we are now witnessing the emergence of a
postinterventionary, resilience world in which the emphasis is placed on anticipatory and
preventative security practices. Over the last decade, the theme ofresiliencehasbecomeone
of the buzzwords within the field of international security as it provides new insights into
the everwideningrangeof contemporarysecurityissues(Cavelty
etal2015,p.4). Therefore
this essay will argue that the emergingglobalsecuritypracticesandnormsareindicatorsthat
we are entering a postinterventionary, resilient world which faces complex, uncertain and
globalisedsecuritythreats.
As such firstly, the essay will begin by conceptualising the term resilience and
locating it within the realm of critical security studies (with a particular focus on
interventionism). The essay will thenproceedtodiscussresilienceasaresponsetotheliberal
internationalism of the 1990s and as a continuation of the human security framework.
Subsequently in order to illustrate the emergence of a postinterventionary world, there will
be a discussion of two resilient security practices firstly anticipatory security through
surveillance, followed by preventative risk managementinrelationtointernationalterrorism.
This will enable us to chartoftheemergenceofresilient(in)security practicessince9/11and
thus critically assess the reasons for which this paradigm has arisen. Finally, the essay will
conclude by analysing the articulations of resilience (or the language of resilience) in the
discourse of French government officials in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks last
year. The aim of including thissectionistoshow that theeagernessofacademics,politicians
and policymakers to absorb resiliency into the security discourse hints at the end of the
liberal state (with the aim of protecting citizens and intervening) and the emergence of a
resilientworld(wheresuspectedvulnerabilities/threatsarepreemptivelymitigatedagainst).

Resilienceandpostinterventionism
Across many disciplinesandpolicy areas,resilienceisconsideredtobeausefulresponsetoa
world of rapid change, complexity and unexpected events (Chandler 2013, p.1). This is
because resilience as defined by the United Nations is the capacity of a system, individual,
community or society potentially exposed to hazard, to adapt by resisting or changing in
order to reach and maintainanacceptableleveloffunctioningandstructure(UnitedNations
2004, Ch.1, s.1:17). The implication of this is that the (in)security of a subject is no longer
restricted to merely the nature or severity of the specific threat,buthasbroadenedtoinclude
thesubjectitselfanditsresilienceandresponsetothethreat.
Furthermore, the literature on the subject of resilience has rapidly grown due to its
universal application and scope (although some may view this as aweakness).Asillustrated
in Figure 1 below, there has been a huge increase in the number of articles published onthe
topic, starting at approximately 600 publications in 2003 and increasing almost tenfold to
5000 publications in 2014. Significantly, this proliferation in publication in relation to the
concept of resilience within security studies underlines a dramatic transformation in our
traditional understanding of security governance as it links security to other seemingly
1

unrelated disciplines such as ecology and psychology (Cavelty

et al 2015, p. 5). Resilience
thuspromotestheshiftfromfocusingontheproblemtoinsteadlookingtoresponses:

The key to security is resilience, for ecosystems, people and

economies . . . We may not be able to protect people from stresses,
shocks and catastrophic events, but we can help them withstand
disasters, recover and adapt (Toulmin 2009, cited in Aradau 2014, p.
10).

Figure1
.NumberofpublishedresiliencepiecesintheWebofScience
Source:WebofScienceonlinedatabase(adaptedandupdatedfromCavelty
etal
2015)

Resilience has also proved particularly insightful as a means of describing the changes in
relation to human security, particularly humanitarian/military interventions which
predominatedinternationalrelationsinthe1990sbutarenowseenashavingfailedinthetask
of implementing successful and sustainable peacebuilding. The work of David Chandler
(2012) charts what he describes as the shift away from liberal internationalism (that is,
intervention with the aim of protecting members of the global community) to a
postinterventionist form of external interaction (intervention with the aim ofpreventingand
empowering the vulnerable). This is summarised succinctly by Chandler (2012, p. 216)who
statesthatresilience:

puts the agency of those most in need of assistance at the centre,

stressing aprogrammeofempowermentandcapacitybuilding,whereas
the liberal internationalist paradigm puts the emphasis upontheagency
of external interveners, acting post hoc to protect or secure the victims
ofstateledorstatecondonedabuses.

This is a convincing argument put forth by Chandler as the paradigm of resilience is

reinforced by the already occurring shift from statebased security to the wider approach of
societal security which allows the space for new actors and agents to be included. Moreover
2

this postinterventionary and resilience framework tackles some of the biggest criticisms
levelled against the liberalinterventionismofthe1990s,forinstanceitdoesnotviewthosein
need of helpaspassivevictimsbutrathervulnerablesubject[s]inneedofenablingagency
to become resilient (Chandler 2012, p. 223).Moreimportantlyhowever,followingthelogic
of responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P), resilience enables the emergence of
postinterventionary (or postliberal, as described by Chandler 2014) engagement as the
division between internal and external interveners ceases to exist as both parties are acting
towards the same goal of constructingsecuringcapacityandagency(Chandler2012,p.224).
Therefore the clash between the conflicting issues of respecting state sovereignty and the
responsibility to protect human rights is resolved undertheresilienceparadigm,asmuchlike
R2P, external intervention is used only when the state is itself vulnerable and lacks the
agency/capabilitytosecureitself.
This argument for the dawning of a postinterventionary world is compelling as it
echoes the larger trend of agencycentred approaches that have filtered into human security
anddevelopmentdiscourses.InthewordsofdevelopmentscholarAmartyaSen(1999,p.xiii)
individuals should be thought of asactiveagentsofchange,ratherthanaspassive recipients
of dispensed benefits and this belief is replicated in the context of the
postinterventionist/resilience paradigm where the emphasis is on prevention rather than
intervention, empowerment rather than protection, and work upon the vulnerable rather than
uponvictims(Chandler2012,p.216).

EmergenceofResilient(In)SecurityPractices:AnticipatorySecuritythrough
Surveillance

We live in a universe based on chance, probability, indeterminacy,

and complexity. Foresight, asanorganizeddiscipline,isknowledgein
theformneededforsurvivalinthatuniverse.(Fuerth2009,p.18)

Having discussed the academic workregardingresilienceandpostinterventionism,theessay

will now turn to look at how the concept of resilience has been adopted and developed into
security policy since the 9/11 and7/7attacks(particularlyintheUK),asawayofillustrating
that we are entering (or perhaps have already entered) a postinterventionary, resilience
world.
As pointed out by Chandler(2012,p.216)thediscourse ofresiliencehasresultedina
significant change with regards to the scales of intervention. Under this paradigm, power is
dispersed throughout the society amongst individuals and institutions and thus replaces the
former stateled protective security practices of liberalism. Moreover, the fact that the
operationalization of resilience through government policy happens to coincide with the
current era of rapid technological advancementisnotsurprising.Indeeditwastheturnofthe
millennium and the new threats which emerged whichledtotheincorporationofresilience
intonationalsecuritypolicies(CoaffeeandFussey2015,p.90).
The postinterventionist paradigms concern with unknown unknowns has meant
that technology is being used to engage and surveil suspects preemptively and most
importantly from a distance (highlighting again how postinterventionism relies on the
practice of remote intervention). Notably following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, governments
attempted to mitigate against potential threats through adopting technological surveillance
methods in public spaces, as clearly seen with theproliferationofCCTVcameras.Moreover
Coaffee and Fussey (2015, p.90) chart how the discourses of resilience (particularly the
3

language of anticipation and preparedness) were formalised into UK national policy in the
2004 Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) which itself saw the establishment of the National
Resilience Capabilities Programme and the Local Resilience Forums. This was reechoed in
the UKs 2009 National Security Strategy, which envisioned resilience as being an
appropriateresponsetothenewandunpredictablethreatsfacingmodernsociety:

The increasingly networked, interdependent and complex nature of

modern society, and the critical systems which underpin daily life
will, over the coming years, increase both the UKs vulnerability and
the potential impact of civil emergencies Dealing with these
widespread, complex and unpredictable events will require greater
societal resilience than we have today. (UK Government2009,cited
inAradau2014,p.6,emphasisadded).

The above mentioned policies clearly show the deliberate incorporation of resilience
into national security policy (in this example, specifically the UK) due to the expectation of
the public for the government tomitigateagainsttheseunpredictablethreats(thusthe needto
respond preemptively and the development of anticipatory solutions to possible security
threats). However, some scholars have indicated that the incorporation of resilience and
technologyintogovernmentpoliciesishavinga harmful,detrimentaleffectmostnotablyfor
the invasive use of surveillance as a means of mass datagathering under emergency
conditions (Adey and Anderson 2012). Additionally others argue that surveillance has
become a visible symbol of a perniciousexpressionofsecuritydrivenresilience, (Coaffee
andFussey2015,p.99).

EmergenceofResilient(In)SecurityPracticesII:PreventionaryRiskmanagementand
internationalterrorism

Civil Contingencies works on the premise that through action in the

interval of the emergency, events can be stopped before they have
wrought havoc upon the societiestheythreaten.(AdeyandAnderson
2012,p.107)

As has been already mentioned, the notion of preparedness and prevention are two central
aspects of the securityresilience nexus which have been readily incorporated into state
policies. This highlights that the form of resilience adopted by states can relate to internal
policy and threats (i.e. resilience does not just have to focusonthesecurityofother statesor
intervention). Furthermore, in contrast to the stateled (liberal) responses to 9/11 attacks,the
London attacks on 7/7 led to a change in direction with a more community planning, local
empowerment approach to preventing terrorism. As outlined by Chandler (2012, p. 223)
resiliencebased approaches to security involve addressing the root causes of insecurity in a
bottomup manner. Therefore the UK governments decision to approach the threat of
homegrown terrorism was to address the underlying causes of extremismandpreventthe
processofradicalisationfromoccurring:

... the government acknowledging the need to work in partnership

with Muslim communities to prevent young people from being
4

radicalised in the first place and to ensure that communities were

resilient enough to respond to, and challenge extremists from within
(Briggs2010,p.971citedinCoaffeeandFussey2015,p.93)

Moreover the governance of resilience (as it is being applied within the UK and beyond
currently) focuses on the individual not only as a vulnerable subject but as also being
responsible for preventing and preparing for potential hazards and security threats a
phenomenondescribedbyCoaffeeandFusseyastheresponsibilizationofcitizens(p.95).
In addition, many academics (Aradau 2014 Evans and Reid 2014 and Jabri 2006)
have analysed how the foundation premise of the liberal state to provide protection to its
citizens (in a Hobbesian social contract manner) has been undermined in a world where
security risks are consistently expanding and growing more complex. As put by Aradau
(2014, p. 10): The promise of security that underpins the liberal state is subtly rephrased
we may not be able to protect people. This indicates that we may beseeingtheendofthe
liberal state as previously conceived, and instead the emergence of the resilient state which
does not promise to control unknown security threats but how to adapt in response to them
andtosurvive.

TheCharlieHebdoattacksandthediscourseofresilience

The final part of the essay will provide a brief analysis of the discourse used by the French
government officials in theimmediateaftermathoftheCharlieHebdoterroristattacks,which
took place last January. This is done in order toillustratehowsuccessfullyandreadilystates
are willing to absorb the term and practices of the resilience paradigm into their security
policies. For instance, the French President Franois Hollande made a public address on 9th
January(twodaysaftertheattacks)saying:

Today, the whole republic was assaulted because freedom of

expression is the republic. France is a great nation and she will
demonstrate that she can
overcome challenges
(Hollande 2015a,
translatedandcitedinBourbeau2013,emphasisadded)

In asimilarmanner,Hollande usedlanguagewithemphasisedtheresilience orbounceback

nature of the French population inthefaceofterrorismstatingthat:Fromthischallenge,we
will emerge even stronger (Hollande 2015b, translated and cited in Bourbeau 2013).
Furthermore in a speech to the French parliament Valls, the French Minister of the Interior
stated that: France was hit in the heart. They have tried to destroy Frances spirit,
fundamental principle, and universal message. However, France is still standing there is
something in these events that makes us
even stronger
. (Valls 2015, translated and cited in
Bourbeau2013,emphasisadded).
It is clear therefore, evenamidstthenationalismcontainedwithinthesespeeches,that
the inclusion of a resilience discourse is evident with the themes of vulnerability,
empowerment and internal agency as a means of responding to the threat. Moreover the
articulation ofresilience inthesecurityresponsesandpoliciesemphasisesthatpoliticiansand
policymakers are cognisant that we have entered a resilient world with unforeseeable
securitythreats.


Conclusion

In many ways, securitydriven resilience, and its execution through

surveillance practices, is increasingnormalizedwithinmodernsociety
and has become a key mode of organizing contemporary neoliberal
society.(CoaffeeandFussey2014,p.101)

Throughout this essay I have exploredwhetherweareinfactenteringa postinterventionary,

resilience world which marks the end of the liberal statebuilding and interventionaryera.As
outlined in the beginning, the turn of the millennium saw the proliferation of the notion of
resilience within security studies as it seemed to help understand the growing number of
previously unknown security threats. Thus this essay has argued that the change in security
practices we are currently seeing signals the beginning of a postinterventionary, resilient
worldwherecomplexityanduncertaintydominate.
The postinterventionary and resilience framework put forth by Chandler (2012)
succeeds in evading many of the inevitable failures of the liberal interventionism which
existed throughout the 1990s. Instead the resilience, postinterventionary approach draws on
the tenets ofhumansecurityand thusinterventionisnotlongerentangledsolelywithmilitary
intervention or notions of protecting a passive victim. Additionally the discussion of
anticipatory and preventative security practices enabled usto chart oftheemergenceofthese
resilient security practices in the wake of the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks and provide
empirical evidence for theemergenceofapostinterventionaryandresilientworld.Thefinal
section illustrated how resilience discourse has been adopted into the everyday language of
security policy through using the example of the speeches made in the aftermath of the
Charlie Hebdo attack. This case is repeated through security policies which have beenmade
in a world of increasingly unknowable threats againstthecitizensofstates.Thenotionofthe
liberal state was founded on the principle of protecting those within itsborders,howeverthe
increased use of the term resilience (and all which that entails) aswellasthesecuritydriven
resilient practices which states have readily adopted indicate the end of an existing security
order,andinitsplace,theemergenceofapostinterventionary,resilienceworld.

Bibliography

Adey,P.andAnderson,B.(2012).Anticipatingemergencies:Technologiesofpreparedness
andthematterofsecurity.
SecurityDialogue
,43(2),pp.99117.
Aradau,C.(2014).Thepromiseofsecurity:resilience,surpriseandepistemicpolitics.
Resilience
,2(2),pp.7387.
Bourbeau,P.(2015).Migration,ResilienceandSecurity:ResponsestoNewInflowsof
AsylumSeekersandMigrants.
JournalofEthnicandMigrationStudies
,41(12),
pp.19581977.
Chandler,D.(2012).Resilienceandhumansecurity:Thepostinterventionistparadigm.
SecurityDialogue
,43(3),pp.213229.
Chandler,D.(2014).
Resilience:thegovernanceofcomplexity
.Oxon:Routledge.
Coaffee,J.andFussey,P.(2015).Constructingresiliencethroughsecurityandsurveillance:
Thepolitics,practicesandtensionsofsecuritydrivenresilience.
SecurityDialogue
,
46(1),pp.86105.
DunnCavelty,M.,Kaufmann,M.andSobyKristensen,K.(2015).Resilienceand
(in)security:Practices,subjects,temporalities.
SecurityDialogue
,46(1),pp.314.
Evans,B.andReid,J.(2014).
ResilientLife
.Cambridge:Polity,p.68
Hollande,F.(2015a).AdresselaNationlasuitedesvnementsdes7et8janvier2015.
Paris,PrsidencedelaRpublique,9janvier.Availablefrom:
http://www.elysee.fr/declarations/article/adressealanationalasuitedesevenementsd
es7et8janvier2/
[accessed18/12/15].
Hollande,F.(2015b).Allocutionlasuitedel'attentatausigedeCharlieHebdo.Paris,
PrsidencedelaRpublique,7janvier.Availablefrom:
http://www.elysee.fr/declarations/article/allocutionalasuitedelattentatausiegedec
harliehebdo/
[accessed18/12/15].

Fuerth,L.(2009).
Foresightandanticipatorygovernance
.[online]Foresight.Availableat:
http://www.forschungsnetzwerk.at/downloadpub/Anticipatory_Governance.pdf
[Accessed19Dec.2015].

Jabri,V.(2006).War,SecurityandtheLiberalState.
SecurityDialogue
,37(1),pp.4764.

Sen,A.(1999).
Developmentasfreedom
.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
UnitedNations,(2004).
Livingwithrisk:aglobalreviewofdisasterreductioninitiatives.
.NewYork:
UNPublications,pp.Ch1,s1:17.
Valls,M.(2015).Hommageauxvictimesdeattentats:discoursdeManuelValls.Paris,Bureaudu
PremierMinistre,13janvier.Availablefrom:
http://www.gouvernement.fr/partage/3118seancespecialedhommageauxvictimesdesattentatsall

ocutiondemanuelvallspremierministre
[accessed18/12/15].
WebofSciencedatabase,availablefrom
http://wcs.webofknowledge.com.dcu.idm.oclc.org/
[accessed19/12/2015]