Defense ministries regularly frame climate security in their national security strategies. Recently, “civil” ministries also begun mentioning climate security. However, they do not mean the same thing. This article develops four indicators to assess the commitment of climate security framings to an understanding of climate security as either human/environmental or national security issue. It applies the indicators to fifty submissions of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) by civil ministries and seventy defense publications. The paper finds that NDC commonly refer to climate changes’ anthropogenic origins and biophysical impacts but rarely to indirect consequences such as migration or conflict. In contrast, military administrations rarely mention anthropogenic origins but warn more often than NDC of indirect consequences. This shows that a civil domestic discourse on climate security has emerged, more attuned to human security and environmental security and more conducive to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The paper argues that organizational theory can explain these differences in securitization: defense and civil ministries frame climate security differently so that it falls in line with their respective mandates and established organizational features. The article concludes with a checklist for assessing framings of climate security.

中文翻译：

---

追踪气候安全化：民政和国防部对气候安全的框架

国防部定期将气候安全纳入其国家安全战略。最近，“民间”部门也开始提到气候安全。但是，它们并不意味着同一件事。本文开发了四个指标来评估气候安全框架对将气候安全理解为人类/环境或国家安全问题的承诺。它将指标应用于民政部门提交的 50 份国家自主贡献 (NDC) 和 70 份国防出版物。该论文发现，NDC 通常提到气候变化的人为起源和生物物理影响，但很少提到移民或冲突等间接后果。相比之下，军事管理部门很少提及人为起源，但比 NDC 更频繁地警告间接后果。这表明国内气候安全的民间话语已经形成，更加契合人类安全和环境安全，更有利于减缓和适应气候变化。该论文认为，组织理论可以解释安全化方面的这些差异：国防部和民政部门以不同方式构建气候安全，使其符合各自的任务和既定的组织特征。文章最后列出了评估气候安全框架的清单。国防部和民政部以不同方式构建气候安全，以使其符合各自的任务和既定的组织特征。文章最后列出了评估气候安全框架的清单。国防部和民政部以不同方式构建气候安全，以使其符合各自的任务和既定的组织特征。文章最后列出了评估气候安全框架的清单。