Great Power Rivalry and Macrosecuritization Failure: Why States Fail to “Securitize” Existential Threats to Humanity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanity lives under a growing spectrum of existential threats that have their origins in human agency and could bring about the collapse of modern global civilization or even human extinction. Why do states fail to mobilize the will and resources to neutralize the existential threats to humankind? This dissertation develops a theory of “macrosecuritization failure,” based on securitization theory and the concept of “macrosecuritization,” and studies the empirical phenomenon of the recurrent failure of states to take extraordinary action for the security and survival of humankind. It finds great power consensus or rivalry to be the central dynamic behind the success or failure of macrosecuritization in international relations. In the absence of a world political entity with the authority and capabilities to “speak” and “do security” on behalf of humanity, the great powers collectively shape the fate of macrosecuritization and the security of humankind. The argument is that conflicting security narratives of “humanity securitization” and “national securitization”—or ways of framing the referent object, the threat, and necessary measures for security—shape the thinking and action of the great powers towards macrosecuritization. When a security narrative of humanity securitization prevails, this can open space for great power consensus on macrosecuritizaton; but when national securitization triumphs, great power rivalries lead them to prioritize national power and security over the security and survival of humankind. The dissertation examines three historical case studies of macrosecuritization (failure) in international relations: the international control over atomic energy (1942-1946), the Biological Weapons Convention (1968-1972), and artificial intelligence (2014-present). The theoretical framework posits three variables to explain the influence of conflicting security narratives over the great powers: (1) the stability of the distribution of power in the international system; (2) the power and interests of domestic securitizing actors over state audiences; and (3) the beliefs and perceptions of political leaders about threats. Ultimately, macrosecuritization fails when these conditions favour a security narrative of national securitization amongst the great powers, whereby fear of “the Other” outweighs fear of an existential threat. The argument has important implications in an age characterized by the escalating great power rivalry between the United States and China under a growing spectrum of existential threats to humanity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".