"Sinking islands" and the UNSC: Five modalities of mobilising science
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11230%2F17%3A10361277" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11230/17:10361277 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.027" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.027</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.027" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.027</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
"Sinking islands" and the UNSC: Five modalities of mobilising science
Original language description
Kiribati, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, the Maldives and other small island developing states in the Pacific are often incorrectly called "sinking islands." With their highest points just a few meters above sea level, they face adverse impacts from climate change and especially sea level rise, which can cause them to disappear entirely or make their territory uninhabitable. After rather frustrating negotiations on other fora, the representatives of those states asked the UN Security Council to deal with their perilous situation in 2007. On the one hand, some countries used scientific argumentation to justify the introduction of this new security agenda. On the other hand, prominent UNSC members such as China and Russia, supported mainly by rapidly developing large countries, rejected it, arguing that the Security Council did not have the expertise to solve environmental problems. Since then the islands have echoed their plight to the UNSC in 2011 and 2015. This paper determines what roles individual countries ascribe to "experts" and "science" during UNSC negotiations. It examines how the authority of "experts" was exploited, which allowed certain countries to strike the issue of those islands from the UNSC agenda by calling for a more "scientific approach," while others used "science" to widen the concept of security. The analysis of empirical data confirms the theory of Berling's three modalities when referring to science. Those modalities can be further extended by Foucault's conception of "will to truth" as a method of exclusion, and Chandler's theory of "empire in denial" as a way of evading responsibility, while maintaining power.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
50601 - Political science
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach
Others
Publication year
2017
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
"Geoforum; journal of physical, human, and regional geosciences"
ISSN
0016-7185
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
84
Issue of the periodical within the volume
August
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
12
Pages from-to
342-353
UT code for WoS article
000408287000038
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85017342556