Risk has recently become a core aspect of the study and practice of security. This raises the question of how the governing of security issues has changed and how risk is situated vis-à-vis other approaches, particularly securitisation theory. One approach is to distinguish securitisation and risk within typologies of ideal-type logics of security, which suggest that while both are useful, securitisation and risk are fundamentally different. One of the crucial distinctions made here is that risk is geared towards the longer-term, routine, and ‘normal’ governance of security issues, while securitisation involves the employment of exceptional measures justified via invocations of existential threat. This article interrogates this distinction, arguing that the division between risk as the normal or routine and securitisation as the exceptional is not as clear as has been suggested in either theory or practice. Risk can and repeatedly has resulted in exceptionalism. This argument is demonstrated empirically through an analysis of the immigration practices and policies of the Trump administration, particularly the travel ban and the declaration of a national emergency to fund construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border.

中文翻译：

---

风险的例外论：特朗普的隔离墙和旅行禁令

风险最近已成为安全研究和实践的核心方面。这就提出了一个问题，即安全问题的管理方式发生了怎样的变化，以及风险是如何定位的相对其他方法，特别是证券化理论。一种方法是在理想类型的安全逻辑类型中区分证券化和风险，这表明虽然两者都是有用的，但证券化和风险是根本不同的。这里做出的关键区别之一是风险针对安全问题的长期、常规和“正常”治理，而证券化涉及采用通过援引存在威胁来证明合理的特殊措施。本文质疑这种区别，认为风险作为正常或常规与证券化作为例外之间的区别并不像理论或实践中所暗示的那样清晰。风险可以并且反复导致例外论。