Paper short abstract:

I explain a) the conditions under which PM Abe's securitization of the Senkaku Islands dispute were succesful, and b) the effects of the securitization moves. I also argue that securitization needs to be seen as a series of (de)securitization acts in a public struggle, rather than a single move.

Paper long abstract:

During 2014/2015, the Abe Administration implemented a new interpretation of the Constitution allowing for a limited version of collective self-defense. In order to legitimate this highly contested expansion of the boundaries for Japanese security policy, Abe securitized several security issues, first and foremost China and its behavior in the Senkaku Islands dispute. In this article, I draw upon Guzzini's (2011) argument that securitization theory should aim for post-positivist explanations through the study of securitization as a mechanism for change. Regarding Japan and the reinterpretation of the Constitution, I argue that there are two phenomena that require explanations: first, what conditions were necessary and sufficient for Abe's securitization move to be successful in the sense that the activation had effect on the public perceptions and elite ideas about security policy (explaining the securitization move). Second, what effects did the securitization move have (explaining the effects). Through a process tracing method in the 2012-15 period, I will identify the conditions under which China and the Senkaku Islands dispute were securitized from Abe's campaign for LDP presidency Fall 2012 to the implementations of laws regarding collective self-defense in the Diet May 2015. I will also point to the specific effects of the securitization moves. Finally, I will argue that post-positivist explanatory securitization theory needs to address (de)securitization as a public struggle to legitimize certain policies and delegitimize others, a struggle that contains a range of actors. One person's securitization act or speech (as in Donnelly 2015) is very seldom sufficient to understand how securitization takes place in modern democratic public debates.