Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Management of Risk

  • Chapter
Risk and Hierarchy in International Society

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series ((PSIR))

Abstract

Risk is a concept that focuses attention on future possibilities, on the probabilities and potentialities of hazards, dangers or threats that do not yet exist and may or may not materialise. Because of this, the management of risk is generally oriented towards activities and modes of behaviour such as prevention, precaution and proactivity. Risk management is essentially about anticipating negative scenarios with adverse consequences before they occur and, thereafter, ensuring that they either do not occur at all or that their impacts are mitigated and controlled. Essentially, this is what Western governments have attempted to do through several interventions in ostensibly risky states. The point has been to prevent globalised or transnational risks to Western security from materialising rather than responding to threats or emergencies as they arise. In effect, Western governments have explicitly taken up the mantle of risk managers, seeking to govern risk and prevent negative future occurrences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. United Kingdom Cabinet Office Strategy Unit (November 2002), Risk: Improving Government’s Capability to Handle Risk and Uncertainty (London: Cabinet Office Strategy Unit).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Roland Paris (2004), At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): p. 40.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Pat Caplan (2000), ‘Introduction: Risk Revisited’, in Pat Caplan (ed.), Risk Revisited (London: Pluto Press): p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Paul Bracken, Ian Bremmer and David Gordon (2008), ‘Introduction’, in Paul Bracken, Ian Bremmer and David Gordon (eds), Managing Strategic Surprise: Lessons From Risk Management and Risk Assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): p. 4.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. As Bracken et al. note, we should expect strong differences between individuals and societies when it comes to the management of risk. See Paul Bracken, Ian Bremmer and David Gordon (2008), ‘Conclusion: Managing Strategic Surprise’, in Paul Bracken, Ian Bremmer and David Gordon (eds), Managing Strategic Surprise: Lessons From Risk Management and Risk Assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): p. 304.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. For example, see Jude McCulloch and Sharon Pickering (2009), ‘Pre-Crime and Counter-Terrorism: Imagining Future Crime in the War on Terror’, British Journal of Criminology 49(5): pp. 628–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Claudia Aradau and Rens Van Munster (2009), ‘Exceptionalism and the War on Terror: Criminology Meets International Relations’, British Journal of Criminology 49(5): pp. 686–701; Mythen and Walklate, ‘Terrorism, Risk and International Security’; Heng, War as Risk Management.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Paul Bracken (2008), ‘How to Build a Warning System’, in Paul Bracken, Ian Bremmer and David Gordon (eds), Managing Strategic Surprise: Lessons From Risk Management and Risk Assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): p. 16.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Rens Van Munster (2005), ‘Logics of Security: The Copenhagen School, Risk Management and the War on Terror’, Political Science Publications 10/2005 (Department of Political Science and Public Management: University of Southern Denmark): p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen (2006), The Risk Society at War: Terror, Technology and Strategy in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): p. 94.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. The White House, National Security Strategy (2002), p. 6 Resolution: Global.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jeffrey Record (2003), ‘The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq’, The US Army War College Quarterly Parameters, Spring 2003: p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. David S. Yost (2007), ‘NATO and the Anticipatory Use of Force’, International Affairs 83(1): p. 41 (italics in original)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Also see Robert Jervis (2003), ‘Understanding the Bush Doctrine’, Political Science Quarterly 118(3): pp. 365–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Abraham D. Sofaer (2003), ‘On the Necessity of Pre-emption’, European Journal of International Law 14(2): p. 214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Letter from Secretary of State Daniel Webster to Lord Ashburton of 6 August 1842, cited in David M. Ackerman (11 April 2003), ‘International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq’, Congressional Research Service Report (Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service): p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  17. The White House, National Security Strategy (2002), p. 15 Resolution: Global.

    Google Scholar 

  18. The White House, National Security Strategy (2002), p. 15. Resolution: Global

    Google Scholar 

  19. The White House, National Security Strategy (2002), p. 15. Resolution: Global

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jessica Stern and Jonathan B. Wiener (2008), ‘Precaution Against Terrorism’, in Paul Bracken, Ian Bremmer and David Gordon (eds), Managing Strategic Surprise: Lessons From Risk Management and Risk Assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  21. United Nations Environment Programme (1992), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&ar ticleid=1163 (accessed 15 December 2013). Despite the divergent discourses, the politics of the environment and national security have both employed the same concepts and ideas — those of risk, prevention and precaution.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hans Sanderson and Soren Petersen (2002), ‘Power Analysis as a Reflexive Scientific Tool for Interpretation and Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 9(4): p. 221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Council of the European Union (2003), A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security Strategy (Brussels: Council of the European Union): p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tony Blair (5 March 2004), ‘Prime Minister Warns of Continuing Global Terror Threat’ (London: Office of the Prime Minister).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kanishka Jayasuriya (2005), Reconstituting the Global Liberal Order: Legitimacy and Regulation (Oxon: Routledge): p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hehir argues that the contemporary advocacy for democracy promotion is due precisely to the perception that it is a useful counter-terrorism tool. See Aidan Hehir (2007), ‘The Myth of the Failed State and the War on Terror: A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1(3): p. 322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. The White House (October 1998), A National Security Strategy for a New Century (Washington D.C.): p. 2 Resolution: Global.

    Google Scholar 

  28. The White House (December 1999), A National Security Strategy for a New Century (Washington D.C.): p. 25 Resolution: Global.

    Google Scholar 

  29. The White House (March 2006), The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington D.C.): p. 1 Resolution: Global.

    Google Scholar 

  30. The White House (May 2010), National Security Strategy (Washington D.C.): p. 37 Resolution: Global.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States and Fernando Teson (1992), ‘The Kantian Theory of International Law’, Columbia Law Review 92(1): p. 89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. See Georg Sorensen (2006), ‘Liberalism of Restraint and Liberalism of Imposition: Liberal Values and World Order in the New Millennium’, International Relations 20(3): pp. 251–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Georg Sorensen (2007), ‘After the Security Dilemma: The Challenges of Insecurity in Weak States and the Dilemma of Liberal Values’, Security Dialogue 38(3): pp. 357–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Christian Reus-Smit (2005), ‘Liberal Hierarchy and the Licence to Use Force’, Review of International Studies 31(S1): p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Beate Jahn (2007), ‘The Tragedy of Liberal Diplomacy: Democratization, Intervention, Statebuilding (Part Two)’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1(2): p. 213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Allen Buchanan and Robert O. Keohane (2004), ‘The Preventive use of Force: A Cosmopolitan Institutional Proposal’, Ethics and International Affairs 18(1): pp. 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. David Garland (1996), ‘The Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society’, British Journal of Criminology 36(4): pp. 445–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nancy Reichman (1986), ‘Managing Crime Risks: Toward an Insurance Based Model of Social Control’, in Andrew T. Scull and Stephen Spitzer (eds), Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control 8 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press): p. 164.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gordon Hughes (1998), Understanding Crime Prevention: Social Control, Risk and Late Modernity (Buckingham: Open University Press): p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Alan Wright (2002), Policing: An Introduction to Concepts and Practice (Devon: Willan): pp. 40–2.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ronald Clarke (1992), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (New York: Harrow and Heston): p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nikolas Rose (1999), Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): p. 237.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. For example, see The White House (September 2006), National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (Washington D.C.) Resolution: Global

    Google Scholar 

  44. The White House (June 2011), National Strategy for Counterterrorism (Washington D.C.).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Christopher Hobson (2008), ‘Democracy as Civilisation’, Global Change, Peace and Security 22(1): p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of New South Wales, Australia

    William Clapton (Lecturer in International Relations)

Authors
  1. William Clapton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2014 William Clapton

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clapton, W. (2014). The Management of Risk. In: Risk and Hierarchy in International Society. Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137396372_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation