Next week I will be presenting my paper on Ontological Securitization of Kosovo in Serbia at the annual BISA-ISA Conference in Edinburgh. The program of the conference is quite impressive. I am particularly looking forward to a big number of papers (in total 19) dealing with Securitization Theory in one way or another.

Summary of my paper: The Copenhagen School (CS) coped with the issue through the concept of Societal Securitization according to which the we-feeling is under threat if and when securitizing actors manage to discursively construct it as such. However, the CS was heavily criticized for failing to go beyond the explicit and reified concept of identity as used by securitizing actors. On the contrary, Ontological Security Theory (OST) avoided this problem by assuming that identity threats are generated by critical situations of unpredictable kind that disrupt important routines and unsettle biographical continuities. So far those two approaches have been talking past each other. While the CS and its Securitization Theory dealt mainly with discursive and explicit dimension of security the OST focused by and large to its practical and implicit side. The aim of this paper is to bring the two approaches together by reconstructing the Securitization Theory along the two dimensions: physical and ontological. The heuristic benefit of such a move will be illustrated in a case study looking at why Serbia has been experiencing the secession of Kosovo not only as a threat to its physical security but also as an existential identity challenge. Moreover, the paper will show that diplomatic measures Serbia undertook in order to protect territorial integrity clashed with its European identity thus creating ontological dissonance.

Mubarak's Verdict - why now?

Only two weeks ahead of the run-off presidential elections this Saturday the Cairo Criminal Court issued a very controversial verdict. Although the former president Mubarak and his Interior Minister Habib Adli were sentenced to life in prison for failing to prevent the killings of protesters, his sons and a handful of top police commanders were acquitted. Unsurprisingly, the verdict moved Egyptians to the streets again in big numbers which is putting quite a fragile stability in the country to another great test. Moreover, it is the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate (Morsi) who is actually benefiting from the newly created situation not the SCAF's darling and the former Mubarak's PM (Shafiq).

Why then did the Court decide to issue this verdict before the second round and not after? Was it just an instance of bureaucratic muddling-through and badly chosen timing or there may be a hidden agenda behind it? If the latter is the case what could be the rationality involved? Since to my best knowledge the Muslim Brotherhood is not controlling the Court why would the establishment shoot itself in the foot and boost the popularity of Morsi? Could it be that the secret plan is to create instability in order to find an excuse to call-off the second round of elections? I agree, it does sound a bit like a conspiracy theory and its difficult to easily buy into it, so I am open to any better suggestions and explanations.