ABSTRACT
In chapters 1-3 of this work I argued that there were theoretical limits to critical and emancipatory security theories. In chapters 4-6 I argued that the dominant theoretical and analytical approaches to the Yugoslav break-up and wars took a critical and emancipatory approach to the conflict and how security policy should be. I argued that there were both theoretical limits to these approaches and political limits in terms of the policy prescription of critical approaches. These theoretical approaches posited abstract rights and groups, failing to engage with the political implications on the ground. At the same time, I argued that in fact international policy was much closer to that advocated by critical and cosmopolitan theorists than ‘traditional’ or pluralist security policy and that far from being an answer to conflict, this policy served to undermine local political settlements and placed the EC in the position of sovereignty. This illustrates that there are political limitations to cosmopolitan policies as advocated by critical and emancipatory theorists. Such policies undermined existing political frameworks and ultimately the power of people in such situations to exercise any meaningful control over their lives.
