This article makes a case for incorporating the concept of ‘Critical Security History’ (CSH) into security studies. While history plays a powerful role in a cornucopia of security stories, we contend that it often goes unnoticed in scholarly research and teaching. Against this backdrop, we present a detailed guide to study how history is told and enacted in non-linear ways. To do this, the article outlines how CSH can contribute to securitisation and ontological security studies. As shown, this lens casts a new light on the legacies of (de)securitisation processes and how they are commemorated. It also illustrates that ontological security studies have only begun to call into question the concept of historicity. Working through these observations, the article marshals insights from Halvard Leira's notion of ‘engaged historical amateurism’ to entice scholars interested in ‘doing’ CSH. While acknowledging that this research agenda is hard to achieve, our study of the 2012 Sarajevo Red Line project helps to illustrate the added value of trying to ‘do’ CSH in theory and in practice. We end with some reflections for future research and continued conversations.

中文翻译：

---

关键安全历史：（去）安全化、本体安全和不安全的记忆

本文提出了将“关键安全历史”（CSH）概念纳入安全研究的案例。虽然历史在安全故事的聚宝盆中发挥着重要作用，但我们认为它在学术研究和教学中经常被忽视。在这种背景下，我们提供了一份详细的指南来研究如何以非线性方式讲述和制定历史。为此，本文概述了 CSH 如何为证券化和本体安全研究做出贡献。如图所示，这个镜头为（去）证券化过程的遗产以及如何纪念它们提供了新的视角。它还说明本体安全研究才刚刚开始质疑历史性的概念。通过这些观察，本文汇集了 Halvard Leira 的见解。“从事历史业余主义”的概念以吸引对“从事” CSH 感兴趣的学者。虽然承认这一研究议程很难实现，但我们对 2012 年萨拉热窝红线项目的研究有助于说明尝试在理论和实践中“做”CSH 的附加价值。我们以对未来研究和继续对话的一些思考结束。