A Securitization Analysis of Immigration and Asylum in the European Union

(1)

(2)

(3)

DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that this thesis, “To Fight, Combat and Prevent: A Securitization Analysis of Immigration and Asylum in the European Union”, is my own work and my own effort and that it has not been accepted anywhere else for the award of any other degree or diploma. Where sources of information have been used, they have been acknowledged.

Name:

Signature:

Date: 17 August 2015

(4)

(5)

To Fight, Combat and Prevent:

A Securitization Analysis of Immigration and Asylum in the European Union

Master Thesis

Ma International Relations, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Anna van der Giessen S1381989

Spaarndammerdijk 243 1013ZW Amsterdam +31 611296697

anna.v.d.giessen@gmail.com

Thesis supervisor:

Dr. R.L. Holzhacker

(6)

(7)

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction of Research Subject & Problem Statement

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that „everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution‟, meaning that all states that ratified the declaration are obligated to provide access to its asylum procedure for all persons crossing their border with the purpose of seeking asylum. Thus, although this interpretation is not uncontested, it follows that the right to seek asylum involves the crossing of international borders. Nevertheless, mixed flows of people meet increasingly strict border controls and immigration measures when trying to cross the external borders of the European Union.

According to the UN Human Rights Council, the EU border control policies and the activities of its border control agency, Frontex, are focused too much on security instead of human rights and should be combined with human rights monitoring and UNHCR involvement.¹ Indeed, protecting the internal security of the EU territory against outside threats has become increasingly important for member states, especially as the process of the abolition of internal borders between member states progressed. Immigration seems to be one of those outside threats. In recent years, the subjects of asylum and immigration have become hot issues in both national and European political discourse. The increasing populism in Europe has sketched the picture of mass influxes of asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and economic migrants destabilizing national societies. Emphasis is placed on both the security impacts of immigration and the lack of EU border security, which would make it necessary to stop immigration, secure European borders, and perhaps even reintroduce the control of national borders. As a result of the hardened debate, national and EU immigration and asylum policies seem tightly linked with security rhetoric and security measures. The formulation of immigration as a threat to individual member states and European internal security, alongside issues such as terrorism, transnational crime and border security, has transferred immigration and asylum into the security field.² This assumption of securitization forms the first premise of this study.

On the other hand, European discourse on migration is confronted with the tragedies occurring on the Mediterranean Sea. The deaths of migrants at sea and the situations of armed

1 Nikolaj Nielsen, „UN says EU border policy harms human rights‟, EUobserver.com (last visited 31.05.13); and United Nations Human Rights Council, „Concept note: Regional Thematic Study: Management of the External Borders of the EU and its Impact on the Human Rights of Migrants‟, OHCHR (2013)

2 Jef Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU, (Routledge 2006), 148.

(10)

2 conflict and economic hardship they are trying to escape emphasize the humanitarian aspect of immigration. The contrast between European security and the humanitarian aspects of immigration and asylum raises the question of which conditions are most likely to influence actual policymaking. It seems that the securitizing discourse is either based on real events or it is a collection of political acts that construct a new reality of security problems. In this, the European Union makes an interesting case for studying policy on immigration and asylum because of the contrast between the heated debates on immigration and asylum issues and the fact that the member states have transferred the responsibilities for policymaking on the subject to the European level. Through the analysis of the speech acts in European Council policy documents this study explores how the discourse reflects the securitization of immigration and asylum.

1.1.1 Objective of the Study

The objective of this research is to provide insight in the securitization of immigration and asylum within the European Union by studying how the securitization process is reflected in policy documents adopted by the European Council. The main aim is to explore how the securitizing acts change as the context changes for the purpose of reaching conclusions on the importance of different contexts for the construction of security problems.

1.2 Research Question & Thesis Statement

1.2.1 Research Question

The central question of this research asks whether the securitizing acts in the European Council‟s five-year programmes have followed changes in context. For this purpose, two main sub-questions are formulated that guide the case study: how is the securitization of immigration and asylum reflected in European Council policy priorities and proposed policy actions? And which contextual conditions are likely to have enabled or constrained the process of securitization? These two questions are further divided in other questions that operationalize the concepts of securitization theorising for the purpose of analyzing the case study. For this purpose the following questions guide the analysis into the concepts of speech act and context:

what are the most prevalent messages about the security implications of immigration and asylum for the EU and national societies? What are the proposed policy actions to curb these

(11)

3 security implications? Do these claims convey a necessity to act and are the proposed measures exceptional? Which events are referred to in the securitizing claims? Which events inform the historical knowledge and experiences about the referent subject within the relevant context?

How is the concept of security defined? Which instruments can be identified that provide policymakers with policy options to deal with immigration and asylum as security issues?

1.2.2 Thesis Statement

Of course, the research question was formulated as a result of a general idea about the outcomes of this study. However, the thesis statement that informed the preliminary study into the research subject was somewhat different from the one guiding the final design of the research question and analysis. The main reason is that much of the literature on migration argues that the subject was securitized after certain events, mainly the end of the Cold War and later 9/11. While most sources verify that this is a viable statement, I have found that the securitization process of immigration and asylum in the EU is not so much guided by events as it is by the contextual factor „notion of European Security‟. This forms only a slight difference, in that the notion of security is in turn influenced by real events as well as by institutional and political changes. Another assumption that guided this study is that the absence of internal borders creates a responsibility for member states and EU agencies to progressively enhance border security from outside threats.

1.3 Social and Scientific Significance of the Research Question

1.3.1 Social Significance

The main contribution of this study is that it provides insight into the political choice of approaching immigration and asylum issues from a security perspective. Security or a security problem is not an objective fact; it is constructed in discourse and through policymaking. Often it seems that the security implications of events such as, for example, mass influxes of immigrants are objective facts that warrant security measures. This study provides nuance to this thinking by showing that securitization is also influenced by the contexts of ideas and practices that already existed prior to the events that seem to form the main reason for new policy measures. The realization that insecurity is not a factual situation but a political choice opens up the possibility to anticipate on future events and securitizing policy measures.

(12)

4 1.3.2 Scientific Significance

The scientific significance of the research question lies in the framework used for analysing EU policy. By reviewing the academic literature on securitization theorising and immigration issues I have devised a framework that allows for a more structured application of the concept of securitization on case studies, as is demonstrated in this research for the analysis of EU policy on the subject of asylum and immigration.

Most securitization research follows the question whether securitization has succeeded or failed, and foregrounds the study into the process of securitization. In contrast, this research focuses on the construction of securitization by analysing speech acts and strategies to act, as well as on the contextual conditions that either drive or constrain securitization. To reach more specific conclusions the context is categorized in the context of events, the context of ideas and practices that are considered part of the policymaking context.

1.4 Research Design and Methodology

1.4.1 Research design

In broad terms, this research consists of a discussion of securitization theorizing, the subsequent construction of a framework for analysis, and a case study. After this introductory section, the research is divided over the following sections: first, the framework of analysis introduces securitization theorizing and provides a discussion of its main concepts. This discussion leads to the design of the theoretical framework that is used for the analysis. Thereafter, the background to the analysis describes EU policymaking and developments of EU policy concerning migration and asylum. Last, the analysis uses the theoretical framework for the empirical analysis of EU policy on immigration and asylum.

This research applies securitization theorizing to the empirical case study of immigration and asylum policy formulated in the European Council‟s five-year programs on the area of freedom, security and justice. Securitization theory was first introduced by the Copenhagen School (CS) and asks the question of what really makes something a security problem. In this, securitization theory contends that security is not an objective state of affairs but rather the result of the construction of a threat in discourse. To put it bluntly, by saying that something is a security problem –the speech act- it becomes a security problem. The second chapter of this study will provide an in-dept account of securitization theorizing and present the theoretical framework

(13)

5 for the securitization analysis of EU immigration and asylum policy. The security aspects of immigration and asylum are much debated on the national and European level. Both the security implications of immigration for national and European security, and the human rights of immigrants and asylum seekers are issues in this debate. It is the heated debate that makes EU policy on the subject an interesting case for securitization analysis. The question of how securitization is reflected in EU policy and which contextual conditions provide causal explanations make up the main directions of inquiry.

The research is given further direction by the choice of levels and units of analysis.

Whereas the CS mainly focuses on the agent level through the analysis of referent objects, securitizing actors and functional actors, other securitization theorists stress the importance of adding acts and context. Balzacq, for instance, proposes agent, act, and context as the three levels of analysis which form the basis for a theoretical framework for securitization analysis.³ Besides analyzing securitizing acts, this research focuses especially on context because context can tell much about why an issue is viewed as a threat. The context is divided in the context of events, the context of ideas, and securitizing practices that are considered part of the context in which EU policy is made. The method of process-tracing is applied to analyze the contextual background of the securitization process. In addition, the securitizing acts that take place within these contexts are analyzed using the methodological tools of discourse analysis. In this, the focus lies on what is stated in the policy documents and which subsequent measures and instruments are devised to deal with the security threat. The subsequent comparison of speech acts, strategies to act and contextual conditions can tell much about which factors contribute or constrain the securitization of immigration and asylum.

All possible units of analysis that fall under the agent level are the securitizing actor, the audience, the referent object (what is threatened) and the referent subject (what threatens), and the power relations among actors. The main securitizing actor for this current research is the European Council, which consists of the heads of state and government of the EU member states. The research thus focuses mainly on the EU level of analysis. The level of member state politics is only analyzed insofar as acts on this level can be appointed as constituting a factor of influence on the securitization process. The acts of other actors that contribute or constrain the securitization process of immigration and asylum policy are considered for the context as well.

3 Thierry Balzacq „Enquiries into Methods: a New Framework for Securitization Analysis‟, in: Thierry Balzacq ed. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (2011), 35.

(14)

6 The research into the contexts is based on literature research of primary and secondary sources:

academic literature, EU policy documents, statistics, policy recommendations, EU legislation, news articles, and human rights reports. The sources thus mainly consist of qualitative sources, but some quantitative data, such as statistics of migration flows and asylum claims, are consulted to support the interpretation of the qualitative sources. The main body of the analysis consists of the analysis of the speech acts in the European Council‟s five-year programmes. The Tampere Programme, the Hague Programme, the Stockholm Programme, and the European Council Strategic Guidelines are thus the most important primary sources for this research.

Furthermore, in addition to the primary sources that are analyzed secondary sources are consulted to support the comparison of the signs of securitization and the contextual factors.

1.4.2 Methodology

The question of how immigration and asylum are a security problem in EU policy is an empirical case study that necessitates a well structured research method. Balzacq describes four methods for conducting research into securitization processes: discourse analysis, ethnographic research, process-tracing, and content analysis. He gives an account of the strengths and weaknesses of each method, and contends that in security studies and IR theory in general, insufficient attention is given to methodology. He argues for the practice of „methodological pluralism‟, in which research methods are combined to „enliven our knowledge of processes of securitization‟.⁴ The method for conducting research and analyzing evidence used here is a combination of discourse analysis and process-tracing. As mentioned above, the inquiry into how the securitization of immigration and asylum is reflected in EU policy will follow the method of discourse analysis, whereas process-tracing guides the inquiry into the contextual factors that may enable or constrain securitization. Combining these methods not only enables an inquiry into how securitization occurred (discourse analysis), but also sheds light on why the referent subject is rendered a security threat (process-tracing).

Most studies into securitization use the method of discourse analysis. However, the interpretation of what the method entails differs alongside the author‟s conception of securitization. The perspective of discourse analysis used by authors of the CS, for instance, is restricted to the analysis of spoken and written utterances and does not, according to Balzacq,

4 Balzacq, „Enquiries into Methods: a New Framework for Securitization Analysis‟, 31.

(15)

7

„pay attention to power relations underlying texts, and does not account for the context‟⁵. There is thus debate about the definition of the word „discourse‟ and the subsequent method

„discourse analysis‟, which does or does not account for context. Discourse in the broadest conception may consist of texts –written and spoken utterances, symbols, pictures, music- and practices that, according to critical discourse analysis, have the „capacity to convey meaning‟ in a social context.⁶ In short, discourse analysis can be interpreted as the analysis of expressions, and inquiry into the meaning of a concept conveyed by that expression. Whether the underlying contexts, such as time and place, are taken into account depends on the scholar‟s choice of levels of analysis.

In my view, process-tracing is the most viable method for the inquiry into contexts.

Process-tracing deals with conditions, causality and interaction. It enables the tracing of parallel discourses and processes that together construct the idea of an issue as a security problem.

Through analyzing what events and actions take place during a certain period within a certain setting –e.g. the national or European political context– an interpretation can be made of whether these events and actions constrain or make securitization possible. Combining process- tracing with discourse analysis one can make inferences about the construction of the security problem; did the idea of an issue change over time due to the analyzed events and actions? It is through this procedure that process-tracing provides the „decision-making context‟ and distinguishes which actors determine the political agenda and subsequent policy actions.⁷

In general, applying these methods on a selected case study involves the collection of data (described under „Research Design‟), deciding on the assumptions that direct the inquiry, and designing criteria for identifying securitizing expressions through discourse analysis. Of course, the choice of case study also determines which time frames and contexts to subject to process- tracing.⁸ In other words, the sources are analyzed following a theoretical framework that provides the direction of inquiry. Besides, the inquiry is structured through the choice of period and the selection of contexts. The chosen periods follow the five-year programme, of which the first was designed in 1999 and the last in 2014. For the contexts the analyzed period is slightly longer because it accounts for the context in which the 1999 programme was designed as well.

The theoretical framework is presented at the end of the second chapter (2.4). It specifies the

5 Balzacq, „Enquiries into Methods: a New Framework for Securitization Analysis‟, 40.

6 Ibid. 39-40.

7 Roxanna Sjöstedt, „Health Issues and Securitization: The Construction of HIV/AIDS as a US National Security Threat‟, in:

Thierry Balzacq ed. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (2011), 151-154.

8 Sjöstedt, „Health Issues and Securitization: The Construction of HIV/AIDS as a US National Security Threat‟, 38, 53.

(16)

8 criteria for the identification of signs or expressions of securitization and treats the different categories of context that may influence the securitization process. Starting with the assumption that immigration and asylum are the suggested targets for securitization, the analysis searches for signs of securitization that express that these issues are either security problems or can be dealt with through normal politics. Therefore, each text is analyzed on how the signifying expressions and policy actions reflect the contextual events taking place around that time.

Finally, a comparison is made between the changes in acts (speech acts and strategies to act) and changes in context.

(17)

9

2. Framework of Analysis

2.1 Introduction

As mentioned earlier, central to this research is securitization theory and its main concepts.

Securitization theory describes how a policy issue is changed into a security issue by the securitizing actor by presenting it as an existential threat to the security of the state or society. In this, security is not viewed as an objective state of affairs but rather as the result of the securitizing actor‟s claim; the speech act. Securitization is thus the construction of a threat and a threatened object in discourse; it defines something as a security threat.⁹ This definition of securitization was first introduced by Buzan, Waever, and De Wilde, who formed the Copenhagen research group. Their central question asks what really makes something a security problem. By studying the speech acts in discourse, inferences can be made about the inter- subjective construction of what is it is that forms a threat to security.

Securitization theory should be viewed in the context of the changing international system and the changing security agenda around the time of the end of the Cold War.

Securitization theory is categorized as part of the Post-cold war Security Studies, besides Critical Security Studies and Human Security. They fall under the more social constructivist theories that react to the positivistic theories of traditional security studies. These theories incorporate more security concerns than the strictly military ones and criticize viewing security as an objective state of affairs. Already from the early 1980s and especially since the end of the Cold War the academic argument for a wider concept of security gained momentum. This widening- deepening debate within International Relations transformed Realism‟s traditionalist logic of international security to account for other security issues besides those constituent to state security and military affairs. The inclusion of new insecurities, such as environmental, societal and human security, ran parallel to the political struggles within governments and security organizations after the end of the Cold War. Also, within the European process of integration on the subject of internal security, issues such as border control, terrorism, organized crime, migration and asylum grew in importance in the 1990s.¹⁰

9 Thierry Balzacq, „The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context‟, European Journal of International Relations (2005) 2, 176; and Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies, (Cambridge University Press 2009) 213,214; and Ulrik Pram Gad and Karen Lund Peterson, „Concepts of politics in securitization studies‟, Security Dialogue, (2011) 42, 315-316.

10 Buzan and Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies, 188; and Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity, 11 and preface;

and Pram Gad and Lund Peterson, „Concepts of politics in securitization studies‟, 315-316.

(18)

10 According to the CS, the inclusion of new threats to security in the political and academic debates demanded new methods of analyzing security. The CS contributed to the debate a new framework for security studies, the concepts of securitization and desecuritization, and a divergence of traditional security into security sectors, which too places the meaning of security beyond just military affairs. CS theory divides security into five sectors: the military, the political, the economic, the environmental, and the societal.¹¹

Because securitization theorizing forms the foundation of the theoretical framework, this section provides a discussion of the literature on securitization, and works towards an understanding of securitization theory that is valuable for studying European immigration issues within a security framework.

2.2 Securitization – Desecuritization Theory

2.2.1 The Copenhagen School’s Securitization Theory

The CS securitization theory thus follows a discursive construction of security, in which security is not an objective state of affairs but rather the result of the construction of a threat and a threatened object in discourse. It is stated as „the process of constructing a shared understanding of what is to be considered and collectively responded to as a threat‟.¹² Although criticism on the CS‟ securitization theory often emphasizes that securitization is presented as the mere uttering of the word „security‟ and that the theory lacks further development, Waever also emphasizes that securitization is not a unilateral act but should be viewed as an interaction between actor and audience; as a collective act including acceptance by an audience.¹³ The securitizing actor tries to convince an audience that to curb the threat emergency measures are needed, which would be called disproportional or exceptional if the issue was not presented as an existential threat. The securitization of an issue thus justifies actions which lie beyond the normal political procedures and may even violate legal and social rules.¹⁴ The sense of urgency and acceptance of the existence of the existential threat by the audience legitimizes these emergency measures. For the CS it is not necessary that the measures

11 Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde, Security, A New Framework for Analysis, (Lynne Rienner Publishers 1998), 25.

12 Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, A New Framework for Analysis, 25.

13 Paul Roe, „Is securitization a 'negative' concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics‟, Security Dialogue (2012) 43, 256.

14 Buzan and Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies, 214; Ole Waever, „Securitization and Desecuritization‟, in:

Lipschutz R (ed), On Security, (Columbia University Press 1995), 5.

(19)

11 are adopted, once they are rendered legitimate the issue is securitized successfully.¹⁵ Herein, security is defined as „a self-referential practice, because it is in this practice that the issue becomes a security issue –not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as such a threat‟.¹⁶

The decision of what constitutes security is therefore not solely the prerogative of the sovereign but more similar to a (democratic) dialogue. The CS‟ account of the securitization process relies on speech act theory as first introduced by J.L. Austin in 1962.¹⁷ And that is probably why the critique on securitization theory focuses on the „utterances‟ that create are said to create facts. Speech act theory is about what is done by saying something, not about how these words are received. In short, speech act theory consists of the following components: the act of saying something, what it is that is done in saying something (alarming, defining, requesting, etc.), and the effect one tries to accomplice on one‟s audience. Concluding that speech act theory does not take into account the last step of the securitization process -the acceptance of the securitizing move by the audience-, we have to look further into the theoretical premises of securitization theory to determine what the above means for the study of securitization.

2.2.2 Desecuritization

The complementary component of the Copenhagen School‟s theory on securitization is the concept of desecuritization, which provides an alternative or reverse process to securitization.

CS theorizing on desecuritization calls for an issue to be taken out of the security realm and to be politicized if possible, which constitutes the preferred long-term option. Desecuritization is referred to as „the shifting of issues out of emergency mode and into the normal bargaining process of the political sphere‟.¹⁸ While there is criticism on CS‟s lack of theoretical support for desecuritization as an alternative to securitization, in general there is consensus on the meaning of the concept itself.¹⁹ Desecuritization is, for instance, defined by Aradau as „maintaining issues

15 Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, A New Framework for Analysis, 23-26; and Mark B. Salter, „When securitization fails:

The hard case of counter-terrorism programs‟, in: Thierry Balzacq ed. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (2011), 121.

16 Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, A New Framework for Analysis, 24.

17 J.L. Austin introduced his speech act theory in his 1962 book How To Do Things With Words (Harvard University Press).

18 Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, A New Framework for Analysis, 4, 29; and Lene Hansen, „Reconstructing

Desecuritisation: the normative-political in the Copenhagen School and directions for how to apply it‟, Review of International Studies (2012) 38, 526.

19 Hansen, „Reconstructing Desecuritisation: the normative-political in the Copenhagen School and directions for how to apply it‟, 38, 527.

(20)

12 in or returning issues to the realm of „normal‟ politics.‟²⁰ Similarly, Huysmans describes the study of desecuritization as „the study of the unmaking rather than the making of security problems‟.²¹Thus, while securitization emphasizes threat and urgency, desecuritization entails the other option, the treatment of an issue through normal politics. „Normal politics‟ and the

„political sphere‟ refer to methods of democratic politics where there is room for debate and bargaining, and is part of public policy decision making.²²

As has been said, according to securitization theory, the desecuritization of an issue that is not an existential physical threat is preferable since moving an issue into the logic of politics can open up more policy options. The CS‟s argument for desecuritization emphasizes the possibilities of debate and compromise in the process of normal policy making, which are improbable in the realm of security policy. Specifically, Waever asks the question whether it is beneficial for some issues to be conceived in security terms just because of the sense of urgency that „security‟ brings. He doubts the benefits of linking an issue to existential threat and defense by the state, suggesting that it does not always result in the best outcomes.²³ As a result of this consideration follows the assumption that the choice to securitize or desecuritize is a political choice. That it is the consequence of the absence of any objective threat definition and of the normative choice of whether securitizing an issue is considered good or bad in any unique political situation.²⁴

The discussion on the process of desecuritization evolves mainly around the critique on its theoretical grounding and application. Simultaneously, the literature suggests several distinct uses and conditions for the desecuritization process, which, according to Hansen, is an indication that the concept needs further work.²⁵ One method suggested in the literature is that of changing the language that is used for defining the main characteristic of the policy issue at hand in political discourse regardless of whether the security implications are still present. This does not mean, however, that desecuritization is a speech act. It must also transform friend- enemy identities. Hansen describes this form as the application originally intended by Waever when he wrote about détente during the Cold War. She calls this form „change through

20 Roe, „Is securitization a 'negative' concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics‟, 249.

21 Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU, 126.

22 Buzan and Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies, 216,217; and Hansen, „Reconstructing desecuritisation: the normative-political in the Copenhagen School and directions for how to apply it‟, 38, 531.

23 Buzan and Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies, 216,217; and Waever, „Securitization and Desecuritization‟, 2; and Roe, „Is securitization a 'negative' concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics‟, 253.

24 Hansen, „Reconstructing desecuritisation: the normative-political in the Copenhagen School and directions for how to apply it‟, 38, 535-536.

25 Ibid. 38, 527.

(21)

13 stabilization‟ and describes it as a transformation of the security discourse which facilitates a normal (and friendlier) political engagement although „the conflict still looms‟. „Rearticulation‟, in contrast, desecuritizes an issue by providing policy solutions to remove the threat, after which no conflict remains in the background.²⁶A related possibility for effecting desecuritization can be derived from theorizing on security knowledge as formulated, for example, by Huysmans and Villumsen Berling, and the concept of policy narratives as formulated by Boswell, Geddes and Scholten. This approach also involves changing attitudes separate from solving the problem by proposing the use of scientific knowledge to provide an alternative understanding that could compete with existing knowledge claims and security rhetoric.²⁷

An alternative to changing language or knowledge is the desecuritization that follows from the replacement of an issue that is removed from security politics with another issue that is securitized in its place.²⁸ Finally, Hansen suggests a form of desecuritization that involves the marginalizing of an issue to the point where not only is it not viewed as a security issue, but was never conceived as such or is removed from the political agenda altogether.²⁹ A similar form of desecuritization is the rejection of the securitizing attempt at the policy level. As described by Salter, a securitization can be rejected when the fear of the proposed policy measures and surpassing of liberal-democratic politics is greater than the fear of the referent subject – fear of anti-terrorism measures that impact privacy in Salter‟s article.³⁰ In this case the securitization attempt fails, which means desecuritization in Aradau‟s conceptualization of desecuritization as maintaining issues in the realm of normal politics.³¹ In conclusion, all forms of desecuritization suggested here entail conceptions of the political and of the friend-enemy distinction that is derived from, or contrasted to, that of the concept of securitization. It is in that sense that desecuritization is viewed as complementary to securitization and not as a separate analytical theory.

26 Hansen, „Reconstructing desecuritisation: the normative-political in the Copenhagen School and directions for how to apply it‟, 38, 529, 542-543.

27Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU, 53, 125, 143; and Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes and Peter Scholten, „The Role of Narratives in Migration Policy-Making: a Research Framework‟, The British Journal of Politics and Internaiotnal Relateions, (2011: 13), 7-8; and Trine Villumsen Berling; and Peter Scholten, „Constructing Dutch Immigrant Policy: Research-Policy Relations and Immigrant Integration Policy-Making in the Netherlands‟, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, (2011:13), 75-76.

28 Hansen, „Reconstructing desecuritisation: the normative-political in the Copenhagen School and directions for how to apply it‟, 38, 529, 541.

29 Ibid. 38, 529, 544.

30 Salter, „When securitization fails: The hard case of counter-terrorism programs‟, 116-131.

31 Roe, „Is securitization a 'negative' concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics‟, 249.

(22)

14 2.2.3 Critique on the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Theory

This subsection outlines the main arguments of critique on the CS‟ securitization theory, and the debate about its further development. The debate about its main concepts and its viability for empirical studies of securitization is sketched in broad lines here, while the in-dept discussion of the main concepts and their development beyond CS theory is treated in the next section. While there are different redirections and reconceptualizations suggested, most authors writing on securitization theory contend that important aspects of the CS formulation of securitization theory are under-theorized and need further development to account for empirical studies into securitization processes. They propose a pragmatic or sociological approach to develop a version of securitization in contrast to the CS‟ philosophical view of securitization (as it is called by its critics). The main argument is that in its emphasis on speech act the CS ignores the social interactions and power relations that are involved in actual situations of securitization. A similar suggestion is that the CS‟ theory on securitization has limited explanatory strength because it is presented as an ideal-typical model that does not allow influences of other formative processes or backgrounds.³² Consequently, the pragmatic approach follows the conception that the securitization process is more complex than can be accounted for by viewing it as a mere speech act. It therefore also analyses the surrounding circumstances, the interactions and (power) relations between the securitizing actor and the audience, and the linguistic construction of the securitizing act. The pragmatic approach analyses, in conclusion, why an issue is securitized and which circumstances made it possible.³³

Furthermore, most authors consider the two aspects „audience‟ and „context‟ under- theorized. Audience is one of the two main components of the securitization process in the formulation of the CS, in that they contend that the securitizing move –the speech act performed by the securitizing actor- needs to be accepted by the audience for securitization to occur. Acceptance by the audience is thus one of the two acts that constitute securitization through speech act, but the audience itself is not thoroughly described. Nor is the way in which the audience performs its act of acceptance in the securitization process. The emphasis of the CS on speech act and on the interactive character of the securitization process clearly invites a critical look on its theoretical thoroughness, precision and social construction of the

32 Michael C. Williams, „The continuing evolution of securitization theory‟, in: Thierry Balzacq ed. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (2011), 212; and Heikki Patomäki, „Absenting the absence of future dangers and structural transformations in securitization theory‟, in: Thierry Balzacq; Stefano Guzzini; Michael C Williams; Ole Wæver and Heikki Patomäki, „Forum: What kind of theory – if any – is securitization?‟, International Relations (2014), 38.

33 Sjöstedt, „Health issues and securitization: The construction of HIV/AIDS as a US national security threat‟, 151.

(23)

15 relationship between securitizing actor and audience. The resulting critique on the overemphasis of agency further suggests that the CS neglects the concrete dynamics and situations that form the context in which the securitization unfolds. Audience and context should therefore be treated as units of analysis besides the securitizing actor and the securitizing act. Also, criticism on the fact that the CS only studies successful cases of securitization states that it is important to study cases in which the audience does not accept the securitizing move.

Finally, most authors endorse the assumption that different audiences exist and possibly interact, and that contexts can vary, which involves the occurrence of different forms of securitizing acts that are not accounted for in the original formulation.³⁴

2.3 Concepts: Definitions and Diverging Approaches to Securitization Theorizing

This section synthesizes insights of different authors on the following concepts: speech act, security and security politics in contrast to normal politics, agency, audience, and context.

Although the main concepts comprising the theoretical foundation of securitization theorizing are indeed interacting forces, for the purpose of clarity, they are treated here separately. These concepts provide the building blocks of different approaches to securitization theorizing.

Therefore the discussions about the concepts are reflected here to provide an overview of the diverging interpretations that form the basis of different approaches to securitization analysis.

In this, it follows Balzacq‟s argument for the use of the phrase „securitization theorizing‟ when discussing securitization because of the existence of „various theories of securitization‟.

Diverging theories that subscribe the concept „securitization‟ have, for instance, diverging outlooks on what research methods are appropriate and which evidence to use. These are, in turn, subordinate to the chosen interpretation of securitization theory.³⁵

This section thus aims to go beyond securitization theory as originally developed by Waever and the other members of the Copenhagen School, to show the discussion and

34 Williams, „The continuing evolution of securitization theory‟, 212; and Sarah Léonard and Christian Kaunert,

„Reconceptualizing the audience in securitization theory‟, in: Thierry Balzacq ed. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (2011), 57; and Thierry Balzacq, „A Theory of Securitization: origins, core assumptions, and variants‟, in:

Balzacq ed. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (2011), 18; and Salter, „When securitization fails:

The hard case of counter-terrorism programs‟, 116.

35 Thierry Balzacq, „The „Essence‟ of securitization: Theory, ideal type, and a sociological science of security‟, in: Thierry Balzacq;

Stefano Guzzini; Michael C Williams; Ole Wæver and Heikki Patomäki, „Forum: What kind of theory – if any – is securitization?‟, International Relations (2014), 3,8-10.

(24)

16 development of securitization theorizing, and to lead up to an interpretation of securitization theory that provides a model for empirical securitization analysis.

2.3.1 Speech Act

Securitization is a speech act, that is, the speech act is the action through which securitization occurs. Security is linguistically constructed by a political agent (the securitizing actor); by saying that something is a security problem, it becomes a security problem.³⁶ However, as described above, since the Copenhagen School several authors have contested the dominance of the speech act in favor of interaction with a relevant audience and emphasizing the external context.³⁷ Furthermore, authors are ambivalent in their descriptions of the Copenhagen School‟s definition of securitization and its main assumption on what constitutes a securitizing act. Some authors interpret the CS conception as the mere uttering of the word „security‟

whereby a new reality is created. Others interpret the CS theory as incorporating the concepts of audience and external context but render these concepts under-theorized. And, as will be discussed below, a final notion of speech act is that its study is either not necessary or not sufficient for concluding that an issue has been securitized.

Before turning to the discussion of speech act beyond its original use in the CS‟

securitization theory, a recap is in order here to provide a clear and in-dept notion of speech act as applied by the CS. As mentioned above, speech act theory was first introduced by J.L. Austin, and accounts for the linguistic analysis of the utterances of the actor, including: what he says (or writes), his intentions, and the effects of the statements. These components of speech act are formally introduced in speech act theory as the following acts: locutionary acts (the act of saying something), illocutionary acts (intention, such as: persuading or warning), and perlocutionary acts (the consequence of saying something: the audience is persuaded to do something).³⁸ In this brief summary of speech act theory, the translation by the CS to securitization theory is clear. The securitizing actor performs a locutionary act by saying „security‟ or, rather, by saying that something is an existential threat. His intention is to persuade the audience to accept this claim, this is the illocutionary act. And finally, the perlocutionary act consists of the acceptance of the audience and the endorsement of the claim made by the securitizing actor that a certain

36 Balzacq, „The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context‟, 172.

37 Balzacq, „The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context‟, 171-201; Jef Huysmans, „What‟s in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings‟, Security Dialogue (2011:42), 371-383.

38 http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/Speech-act-Theory.htm (last visited 11-03-2015)

(25)

17 urgent action is needed. Consequently, the reliance on speech act theory proscribes textual analysis of discourse to study a case of suspected securitization, and guides the focus to what is presented as an existential threat in speech act and whether this is accepted by an audience.³⁹

By contrast, the sociological and pragmatic approaches to speech act contend that, although the word „security‟ has certain effects when used, for the securitization of an issue a speech act is not sufficient. This has implications for both the notion of what the process of securitization entails and for the chosen analytical focus for the study into securitization processes as well. As is described above, the pragmatic approach considers the securitization process to be more complex, and characterized by interactions and social (power) relations between actors, audience, and contexts.⁴⁰ For example, Patomäki argues that, from a theoretical viewpoint, there are two readings of securitization theory. On one side there is the post- structuralist approach which focuses on language and speech act to study securitization, and holds a subjective view of „the reality of threats‟. On the other side, the sociological approach

„analyses the social process of securitization in terms of facilitating conditions, authority of the speaker and the complex social field within which securitization occurs‟.⁴¹ This dichotomy provides a clear expression of the different views on how to qualify and study securitization discussed so far.

However, there are other conceptualizations of securitization that cast yet a different light on the study of securitization processes. Huysmans, for instance, argues in his conceptualization of securitization that the existential threat claim is not a necessity for concluding that an issue was securitized. Rather than through speech acts, Huysmans also considers the indirect linking of the policy issue with security in discourse, or the institutional act of framing it as a security issue in formal agreements a securitizing activity. A policy issue is framed as a security problem when it is merely included in „domains of insecurity‟; when security policy is the preferred way of dealing with the policy issue.⁴² Another option, argued by Sjöstedt, is to define a securitizing move as „the public framing of an issue as a national threat, accompanied by a strategy to act‟.

She thus adds the criteria of policy action to the study of whether and how an issue is securitized.⁴³ Similarly, Vuori expresses securitization as „actually dealing with something as a

39 Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, A New Framework For Analysis, 23-26.

40 Patomäki, „Absenting the absence of future dangers and structural transformations in securitization theory‟, 34; and Sjöstedt,

„Health issues and securitization: The construction of HIV/AIDS as a US national security threat‟, 151.

41 Patomäki, „Absenting the absence of future dangers and structural transformations in securitization theory‟, 33.

42 Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU, 3-4, 149-150.

43 Sjöstedt,„Health issues and securitization: The construction of HIV/AIDS as a US national security threat‟, 151.

(26)

18 security issue‟.⁴⁴ Thus, the development of securitization theorizing since its formulation by the CS has vastly expanded securitization from the study into speech act towards the study of more complex social interactions between actors, audiences and contexts, and has included policy strategies and actions into securitization analysis.

2.3.2 Security

When talking about the process of securitization it is indispensable to reflect on the concept of security. Its notion of security places the CS‟ securitization theory in a broader theoretical context by arguing that security is, in the context of securitization, not an objective condition but a social construct. Of course, a threat to security can be a factual situation, but since we are talking here about securitization as an act it follows that what is most important is the securitizing actor‟s perception of threats. The security framework by the CS is presented as an alternative to traditional security studies through incorporating the traditional notion of security while giving equal attention to other sectors of the widened security agenda. The CS‟

division in security sectors is important for understanding their definition of security, since it is embedded in their „sectoral logic of security‟. Security in the other security sectors –the environmental sector, the economic sector, the societal sector, and the political sector-, is different from the traditional notion of security in the military sector. But there are basic properties of security that run through each sector: security is in essence about freedom from threat and about survival, although what constitutes an existential threat and which referent object‟s survival is threatened differs across sectors.⁴⁵ Therefore, societal security does not refer to challenges to the persistence of society by physical (military) threats but to threats to the autonomy of the community or its collective identity –also referred to as identity security.

Societal security, in turn, refers to the maintaining of society‟s essential character despite those threats. For instance, within the European Union increased European integration is often seen as threatening security of national communities in that the loss of national and cultural identity or political autonomy is feared.⁴⁶ In addition, threats to the survival of the political unit as a sovereign state fall within the sector of political security.⁴⁷ Thus, to avoid a too narrow

44 Holger Stritzel, „Security, the translation‟, Security Dialogue (2011:42), 349.

45 Waever, „Securitization and Desecuritization‟, 6; and Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, A New Framework For Analysis, 27, 189-191.

46 Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, A New Framework For Analysis, 22-23; and Buzan and Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies, 213; Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU, 48.

47 Waever, „Securitization and Desecuritization‟, 6.

(27)

19 conception of security the CS has adopted a constructivist notion of security, it varies in form and meaning depending on the type of threat and threatened unit.⁴⁸

This widening of the security agenda and flexibility in form of security does not mean, however, that security can be stretched to any problem that occurs; in the context of securitization the CS talks about „the threshold of security‟. There must be certain criteria that differentiate security from the mere political. The distinction between politics and securitization can be difficult to make since securitization often occurs within the political process. And subjects often move through the process of politicization (being put on the political agenda) to securitization. To make this distinction, first of all, threats and problems must be considered by the securitizing actor as an existential threat to a referent object. Also, emergency measures that go beyond certain rules of normal politics must be proposed to ensure the survival of the referent object. Security is in this sense an extreme version of the political.⁴⁹ The criteria that define security and securitization are thus not scientific criteria but are dependent on the assessment of the analyst. The CS argues that indicators of securitization are not needed, by studying discourse the analyst can answer the following question: „When does an argument with this particular rhetoric and semiotic structure achieve sufficient effect to make an audience tolerate violations of rules that would otherwise have to be obeyed?‟.⁵⁰ This brings us back to speech act and the acceptance of the audience. In other words, the criteria that form a threshold for a successful securitizing act also define what constitutes security. Therefore, in securitization theorizing the widening of the security agenda does not mean that there are endless varieties of security problems. Rather, through the application in discourse analysis of the criteria for the representation of an existential threat, the necessity to act and the exceptional measures proposed both define the securitization act and the definition of security.

However, securitization theorists, that follow a different approach to securitization than the CS, do agree that security is a subjective concept and that securitization is inter-subjective as it involves not only the threat perception of the securitizing actor but also necessitates an agreeable audience. According to Stritzel‟s theory of security as translation, this basic idea can be applied to the meaning of security by viewing security as a concept that differs in meaning according to its place, context and, perhaps, policy issue at hand. Security would then change in meaning over time and adjusts through the encounter with a new environment. The mere

48 Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, A New Framework For Analysis, 189.

49 Ibid. 4-5, 21, 23-26.

50 Ibid. 25.

A Securitization Analysis of Immigration and Asylum in the European Union

To Fight, Combat and Prevent:

A Securitization Analysis of Immigration and Asylum in the European Union

Master Thesis

Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Framework of Analysis