Mazhab Kopenhagen (hubungan internasional): Perbedaan antara revisi

== Kritik ==

Kritik yang dilontarkan terhadap mazhab Kopenhagen adalah pendekatannya yang terlalu [[eurosentrisme|eurosentris]] terhadap keamanan.<ref>Wilkinson (2007) The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe?, Security Dialogue March 2007 vol. 38no. 1 5-25</ref> Kaum realis juga berpendapat bahwa perluasan agenda keamanan mazhab Kopenhagen akan menciptakan "ketidakselarasan intelektual" dalam [[studi keamanan]].<ref> Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998), ''[[Security: A New Framework for Analysis]]'', Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, p 2</ref> [[Lene Hansen]] mengkritik tidak adanya gender dalam pendekatan mazhab Kopenhagen.<ref>Hansen, Lene (2000) 'The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School',Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 29: 285-306</ref> Kritikus lainnya berfokus pada peran analis keamanan dan sifat konservatif mazhab Kopenhagen.<ref> See Huysmans, ‘Revisiting Copenhagen’; and Johan Eriksson, ‘Observers or Advocates?: On the Political Role of Security Analysts’, Cooperation and Conflict 34, no. 3 (1999): 311-3; and Giovanni Arcudi, ‘La Sécurité Entre Permanence et Changement’, Relations Internationales, no. 125 (2006): 97-109</ref>

== Lihat pula ==

* [[Mazhab Wales (studi keamanan)]]

* [[Mazhab Paris (studi keamanan)]]

* [[Studi keamanan kritis]]

* [[Mazhab keamanan dunia ketiga]]

== Referensi ==

== Bacaan lanjutan ==

* Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver & Jaap de Wilde (1998), Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienne

* Bill McSweeney, ‘Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen school’, Review of International Studies, 22:1 (1996) 81-93.

[[CategoryKategori:Teori hubungan internasional]]

[[CategoryKategori:Konstruktivisme]]

[[CategoryKategori:Studi keamanan]]

[[CategoryKategori:Mazhab Kopenhagen (studi keamanan)]]