The water literature is saturated with securitization jargon. Coloring a discourse that could have been political, technical or economic in securitization rhetoric is especially prominent in the literature and policy on the securitization of transboundary water. However, despite the tendency to address water as a securitized resource, it is often unclear what the term “water security” means. Also, unclear are the contextual variables that trigger the use of such discourse; the way in which securitization is institutionalized; and its impacts on the decision-making process. This paper aims to systematically review the missing gaps around the securitization enigma. It also provides a rudimentary typology for potential mechanisms to securitize the water discourse and their potential impact on decision-making processes. Among the mechanisms identified are structural ones such as setting buffer zones around water infrastructure; institutional ones such as the exclusion of civil society from decision-making processes; and linguistic ones such as the use of framing and narratives for justifying military involvements. The securitization of the discourse is not likely to be distributed equally in time and space and is likely to be triggered by disasters, resource scarcity and power asymmetry. Some institutional venues are likely to be more receptive to such rhetoric.
|Original language||American English|
|Number of pages||11|
|Journal||International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics|
|State||Published - 24 Sep 2015|
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2015, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.