Resumo A pandemia de COVID-19 tem gerado controvérsias em torno das políticas de saúde adotadas em diferentes países. A necessidade de controlar a propagação do vírus tem sido usada como justificativa para medidas de restrição da mobilidade e para largos investimentos em dispositivos de vigilância, o que pode abrir espaço para formas não democráticas de governo. Nesse contexto, a Escola de Copenhague tem oferecido o instrumental teórico que informa muitas das análises nos campos de estudos críticos de segurança e saúde global. Segundo esta perspectiva, a securitização da COVID-19 agiliza as respostas à crise, mas guarda caráter discriminatório, contribuindo ainda para o avanço de políticas autoritárias potencialmente duradouras. Neste artigo, exploramos os debates recentes em torno das políticas de contenção da pandemia para abordar os limites políticos e analíticos da teoria da securitização. Por um lado, demonstramos que o foco em momentos de ruptura e políticas de exceção negligencia práticas de segurança que se desenvolvem no dia a dia das disputas institucionais e na construção de conhecimento especializado sobre saúde pública. Por outro, apontamos que a proposta da Escola de Copenhague impede uma genealogia dos aparatos modernos de segurança e ignora formas violentas de governo que não se manifestam em grandes atos disruptivos, mas na rotina de sociedades desiguais. Sugerimos, por fim, que a análise das disputas burocráticas e controvérsias científicas que constituem os conhecimentos e práticas dos campos de segurança e saúde permite que abordagens críticas se engajem com os múltiplos e, por vezes, mundanos processos pelos quais a (in)segurança é produzida, disseminada e contestada.

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked controversies over health security strategies adopted in different countries. The urge to curb the spread of the virus has supported policies to restrict mobility and to build up state surveillance, which might induce authoritarian forms of government. In this context, the Copenhagen School has offered an analytical repertoire that informs many analyses in the fields of critical security studies and global health. Accordingly, the securitisation of COVID-19 might be necessary to deal with the crisis, but it risks unfolding discriminatory practices and undemocratic regimes, with potentially enduring effects. In this article, we look into controversies over pandemic-control strategies to discuss the political and analytical limitations of securitisation theory. On the one hand, we demonstrate that the focus on moments of rupture and exception conceals security practices that unfold in ongoing institutional disputes and over the construction of legitimate knowledge about public health. On the other hand, we point out that securitisation theory hinders a genealogy of modern apparatuses of control and neglects violent forms of government which are manifested not in major disruptive acts, but in the everyday dynamics of unequal societies. We conclude by suggesting that an analysis of the bureaucratic disputes and scientific controversies that constitute health security knowledges and practices enables critical approaches to engage with the multiple – and, at times, mundane – processes in which (in)security is produced, circulated, and contested.

Journalists and policy analysts have highlighted the emergence of Brazil as a regional power. However, little attention has been paid to its foreign policy strategies. Brazil's rise to prominence in world politics represents the historical culmination of a foreign policy featuring two main strategies – persuasion and consensus building – both of which emphasise the use of soft power. We analyse four current foreign policy initiatives: the campaign for a permanent seat on the UNSC; the development of a nuclear submarine; Brazil's leadership of the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti; and government support for Brazilian multinationals. We suggest a growing tension between these initiatives and the two strategies identified above. These initiatives reflect the view current among some policymakers that if Brazil is to rise as a global power it must play by the rules of great power politics.