Copenhagen School/Securitization

How do regional arrangements construct and respond to threat agendas, and to what extent can the existing literature on securitization theory help us understand this process? This article explores these questions by analyzing how the African Union (AU) has responded to contemporary transnational challenges. After providing an overview of the Copenhagen School's concept of securitization, the article discusses whether the known problems and limitations of securitization theory prevent this approach from being applied to regional arrangements. Arguing that they do not do so per se, the article then provides an overview of transnational challenges on the AU's agenda and explores the extent to which the organization has " securitized " them. It concludes that the AU has collectively securitized only a limited number of transnational challenges, particularly terrorism and HIV/AIDS, and that significant problems remain when attempting to apply the Copenhagen School's framework to regional arrangements.

Öz Bu çalışmada Belucilerin ulusçu istemlerini meşrulaştıran toplumsal faktörler değerlendirilmiştir. Bu değerlendirmenin yapılmak istenmesinin esas nedeni, Pakistan ve İran topraklarında bölünmüş halde yaşayan bu halkın yükselen ulusçu istemleriyle küresel/bölgesel aktörlerin stratejileri arasında yakın bir ilişkinin olmasıdır. Beluci ulusçuluğunun değerlendirilmesi hususunda ise Kopenhag Okulu'nun öngördüğü güvenlikleştirme yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Ulusçuluk girişimleri genel itibarıyla devletler arası ilişkiler üzerinden ve realist kuram bağlamında anlamlandırıldığı için, Beluci kimliğinin konsolide olmasında etkili toplumsal faktörlerin sosyal inşacılık üzerine temellendirilmiş bir yaklaşım olan güvenlikleştirme çerçevesinde ele alınması önemli bir farklılık oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın vardığı sonuç ise, Beluci ulusal kimliğinin Pakistan ve İran'ın toprak bütünlüğünü tehdit edebilecek ve bölgesel dengelere etki edebilecek şekilde kullanılabilecek bir toplumsal meşruiyete sahip olduğudur.

Despite a growing interest in the role of emotions in world politics the relationship between emotion and securitization remains unclear.  The article argues persistent, if sporadic, references to fear and emotion in securitization studies represent ‘slips’ from an explicit ontology centred between the constitutive power of language and authority.  This slippage leaves securitization theory incoherent and narrows its empirical scope by excluding the emotional dispositions audiences rely upon to judge threat images.  This article offers a reconstruction of securitization theory where emotion, specifically collective fears, serve as the basis of an audience’s judgement for the practice of securitization.  Yet rather than simply accepting that fear facilitates securitizing moves the article draws on appraisal theory from psychology to demonstrates how collective fear appraisals are often fragile cultural constructs.  Limited by the symbolic resources of the local security imaginary and how agents contest these resources, the generation of collective fear appraisals is often constrained and with it the practice of securitization.  An empirical discussion of threat images in US foreign policy is used to explore these constraints.  The conclusion suggests the tendency for securitizing moves to be interpreted as comic underscores the precariousness of social practices seeking to elicit particular collective emotions.

The Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 was marked by the securitization of the political identity of Russian speakers living in Crimea. Discourse from Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as other important Russian political actors all framed the situation in Crimea as one that required exceptional and emergency measures from the Russian state. How did this happen? This thesis aims to examine how Russia securitized political identity by using methodology and discourse analysis from the Copenhagen School of Security Studies. Beyond simply a discourse analysis, this research also aims to determine what the actual reasons were for the annexation. In doing so, the thesis conducts a historical and cultural analysis of Russian-Ukrainian relations, examines the international, domestic, and local factors of the annexation, summarizes the Russian explanation for their actions, thoroughly analyzes the relevant discourse on the subject, asks what the actual reasons for annexation may have been, examines a similar case study of South Ossetia and asks what the implications of this securitizing move will be. Particularly interesting is that the role of political identity as a tool to be securitized will most likely remain geopolitical in nature. Further, the thesis overall makes a claim that abstract ideas that are securitized do not need to be present objective threats to the state. They simply need to be presented as such, The framing of the narrative surrounding the Crimean annexation is not only interesting due to its manipulation of facts, but to its ultimate circling of the question of whether Russia and Ukraine share a common historical memory, as the Russian explanation would have observers believe.

In the reputed work Securitization: A New Framework for Analysis (Buzan, Wæver, & de Wilde, 1998), the Copenhagen School theoreticians indicated that the media sector might not offer the correct answers in surveying the nexus between governments’ manoeuvres and sociopolitical developments because it is not easy to determine the principal goals of the sector. Nonetheless, they agreed that media is apt to be exploited as a threat “manufacturing” tool (Buzan et al., 1998, pp. 88–89; Sheafer & Dvir-Gvirsman, 2010, p. 212), even though it does not control the urgency levels of issues without the will of governments
(Hass, 2009, p. 83). The Copenhagen School also claims that securitization theory, which examines the relationship between security threats and political discourses, might have better practicability for peripheral researchers than other critical approaches within security studies (Bilgin, 2011, p. 405). The reference point is that “peripheral scholars may be distrustful of the ways in which ‘security arguments’ are often (mis)used by rulers and elites for domestic purposes” (Bilgin, 2011, p. 403). Although this statement needs to be evaluated in another review, the Copenhagen School’s arguments of (mis)usage of security issues and exploitation of the media sector have been proven in Turkey’s everlasting dilemmas, which were revived by the Justice and Development Party (Turkish acronym AKP) after the nine years of desecuritization of Kurdish separatism and Bashar Assad as the old enemy.

This book explores the political process behind the construction of cyber-threats as one of the quintessential security threats of modern times in the US.

Myriam Dunn Cavelty posits that cyber-threats are definable by their unsubstantiated nature. Despite this, they have been propelled to the forefront of the political agenda. Using an innovative theoretical approach, this book examines how, under what conditions, by whom, for what reasons, and with what impact cyber-threats have been moved on to the political agenda. In particular, it analyses how governments have used threat frames, specific interpretive schemata about what counts as a threat or risk and how to respond to this threat. By approaching this subject from a security studies angle, this book closes a gap between practical and theoretical academic approaches. It also contributes to the more general debate about changing practices of national security and their implications for the international community.

This dissertation seeks to map, compare, and interrogate the concept of desecuritization, as it has been developed in normative-political and empirical literatures, both within and beyond the Copenhagen School. Departing from the ordering question: “Why has ‘desecuritization’ been theorised in such diverse and inconsistent ways, how does it operate politically, and does it warrant the Copenhagen School’s political-ethical preference for it as a generally positive solution to the ‘problem’ of securitization?”, this argument will engage with a range of past and present debates, synthesizing the political-theoretical- and empirical literatures in order to re-read the political-normative implications, merits and problems of a number of proposed desecuritizing strategies. On this basis it will seek to
interrogate the theoretical limits of these strategies as it attempts to explore the move’s analytical complexity, in order to ultimately reflect on what this reveals about three critical, unarticulated tensions—theoretical, political, normative— in the inconsistent ways ‘normal politics’ has been understood and used; between two opposed normative-political principles underpinning the Copenhagen School’s normative program; and between the way de-securitization works in general, and its general preference for desecuritization in particular.

The new century has witnessed unprecedented efforts by both international institutions and mental health movements to promote and prioritise mental health at the same level as other priority health issues, especially HIV/AIDS. The release of the highly influential Lancet series on global mental health in 2007 highlighted these efforts, and the slogan “no health without mental health” became widely known. Despite success in developed regions, mental health and illness have been largely neglected in lesser developed areas made up mostly of low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs). This preliminary research explored the efforts to prioritise mental health through securitisation and attempted to determine why such efforts are not successful in LAMICs regions, focusing on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a case study. According to our findings, a primary reason mental health is not prioritised in ASEAN is the difference in the values and social norms of LAMICs versus liberal-Western values and norms. These liberal-Western values and norms are the root of securitising, prioritising efforts. Securitisation can be considered a humanitarian effort, because the process is grounded in moral arguments and a universal value of human rights and dignity. For such securitisation efforts to succeed, however, a region must share the values at its roots. The final recommendation is that mental health advocates find a more pragmatic strategy in order to make the efforts workable within LAMICs regions.

As the world continues to fail to reduce and control global surface temperatures so the use of solar radiation management (SRM) technology is becoming increasingly likely. This article examines whether capable individual states and other actors, unilaterally or in small groups, are – from a moral point of view- permitted to deploy SRM technology from the global commons. To answer this question the article examines Elizabeth L. Chalecki and Lisa L. Ferraris (2018) ‘ just geo-engineering theory’ and Kyle Fruh and Marcus Hedahl’ s (2019) suggestion that unilateral geoengineering is – in certain circumstances – a justified form of self-defence against the unjust ‘war’ that is climate change. Given that the two pairs of authors disagree on a number of key points (including on the all-important issues of who may deploy such technology and under what circumstances) that analysis remains inconclusive. The article ventures to answer these and other resultant questions by invoking Just Securitization Theory (Floyd, 2019). It finds that from this perspective unilateral deployment of SRM is not merely morally permissible (provided all criteria are satisfied) but that such action may – in future – even be morally required. Echoing Fruh et al (2019) however this research is not an endorsement for SRM use, but rather a warning of what will happen - indeed will need to happen - unless concrete climate action is taken now.

While media and scholarly attention on the ‘clandestinity’ of migrants is commonplace, and while ‘visibility’ and ‘invisibility’ feature prominently in the vocabulary of migration scholars, it seems researchers rarely interrogate borders and migration from the angle of sociologies, anthropologies and geographies of secrecy. We use the analytics of secrecy when we debate the covert activities of spies, diplomats, bankers, conspirators,  not to mention the transgressive acts of whistleblowers, but arguably less so when we theorize migration control. In this essay I want to explore some connections between the politics of secrecy and the politics of migration control. My main argument is that it is fruitful to bring theoretical and empirical reflections on secrecy into the debate about borders and migration. I call this the secretization of migration.

What happens to foreign politics when actors, things or processes are presented as threats? This book explains state’s international behavior based on a reflexive framework of insecurity politics. It argues that governments act on knowledge of international danger available in their societies, and that such knowledge is organized by varying ideas of who threatens whom and how. The book develops this argument and illustrates it by means of various European case studies. Moving across European history and space, these show how securitization projected abroad evolving – and often contested – local ideas of the organization of international insecurity, and how such knowledges of world politics conditioned foreign policymaking on their own terms. With its focus on insecurity politics, the book provides new perspectives for the study of international security. Moving the discipline from systemic theorizing to a theory of international systematization, it shows how world politics is, in practice, often conceived in a different way than that assumed by IR theory. Depicting national insecurity as a matter of political construction, the book also raises the challenging question of whether certain projections of insecurity may be considered more warranted than others.

The COVID-19 pandemic quickly led to the closure of universities and colleges around the world, in hopes that public health officials’ advice of social distancing could help to flatten the infection curve and reduce total fatalities from the disease. Drawing on Copenhagen school securitization theory and analyzing 25 declarations of emergency eLearning at American universities, I argue that in addition to COVID-19 being framed as a general threat, face-to-face schooling was also presented as a threat through these policies. A review of securitization theory—with particular attention to the question of advocacy and the relationship of desecuritization to emancipation—grounds the investigation theoretically. I argue that securitization theory is an important tool for educators not only for observing (and understanding) the phenomenon of emergency eLearning, but also for advocating the desecuritization of schooling after the COVID-19 crisis passes.

The article takes a micro-level look at the construction of security in the PRC by analyzing Deng Xiaoping’s first speech after the Tiananmen incident in 1989. The author proposes that the reproduction or post-hoc construction of security is a specific variant of securitization.

The subject of this essay is to, with as many facts as possible, explain, how, throughout the actions of the countries after post- Cold War period, have created both mixture of the over secured and super watched upon everyone world of the “Big Brother”1, and the world of Mustapha Mond and his world government. And also, how those two fictional worlds, have intertwined in today’s securitization practices and the society’s respond to it.

International migration has been progressively perceived as a security issue and so it has been included in the discipline of Security Studies. Focusing on state actors, International Relations and Security Studies scholars have dealt with Migration as a security threat in the aftermath of the Cold War, specifically after 9/11 and the rise of International Terrorism.
In this work, I will address two main issues: “why” and “how” migration has been understood as a security issue. I will consider three different schools of thought (Samuel Huntington’s theory on the Clash of Civilisations; the Copenhagen School of International Relations; the Paris School of International Relations), and I will view migration to be a matter related to the concept of what these scholars defined as “societal security”.
I would take as the initial cornerstone the notion that migration has become a security issue because of the social construction of the migrant as a threat. Through a couple of case studies, I seek to prove why migrants have been included into the security sphere of the state, so providing the distinction between the locals (i.e. the “us”) and the external threat (i.e. the “them”). So, I will firstly consider the cases of “vigilantism” in the Mexico – US border and secondly the case of the Mexico – Guatemala border.
This discussion would supply the answer to the first question (the question of the “why”) which I expect to prove throughout the first part of this work.
Differently, answering the “how” problem entails an explanation of the process of securitisation. In this context, to be selective is a must, since opting for broader examples could result in vagueness. Thus, I will confront the securitisation process within the European Union.
Jeff Huysmans interprets the securitisation of migration in the European Union as a spill-over effect from an internal economic need to a security threat.
In fact, after the European Enlargement of 1973, Member States started to put limits on migration flows, taking advantage of the fact that Migration Policy had stayed in the sphere of national prerogatives, so denying the possibility of a supranational, centralised response to the Migration Crisis as we had later (2011). Member States’ inadaptability in responding to the challenge has turned Migration into a security threat. To prove this, I wish to focus on two specific factors: Welfare Chauvinism and the Paradox of the Schengen Agreement.
The literature defines “Welfare Chauvinism” as the fear of the migrant as a threat to the locals’ economic advantages provided by the State.
Instead, the Schengen paradox is the purely European pattern of closing external borders while eliminating internal barriers.
The Operation Mare Nostrum and its suspension is the final example to illustrate how South-North Migration has been securitised in the European Union.

The following comprises a literature review written for a project that was left uncompleted (due to limitations of time and scope). I urge future scholars to adopt the groundwork laid out in this proposal, in order to shed light on the socio-discursive construction of imminent threat by the US executive powers in the post -9/11 world.

*** I hereby forgo intellectual property rights —to whatever extent possible— over this work, in hopes that this literature review might provide a useful starting point for scholars interested in completing research on this topic in the future. ***

В статье исследуется российская несистемная оппозиция как политический феномен, категоризация которого произошла в 2000-х гг. Несистемная оппозиция рассматривается в контексте принципиального изменения характера деполитизации после президентских выборов 2012 г., когда административно-бюрократическая рациональность сменилась секьюритизацией ключевых сфер общественной жизни. Отмечается, что мобилизация понятия «неси-стемная оппозиция» является частью стратегии властного дискурса. Постепенно «несистемность» переводится из юридического в культурное предметное поле посредством противопоставления «стабильности» — основному по-стулату риторики президентской кампании Владимира Путина 2012 г. Таким образом запускается механизм отчуж-дения части политического сообщества и формирования негативного к ней отношения в общественном сознании. По мере реализации стратегии секьюритизации это понятие постепенно выходит из публичного оборота.

Final Bachelor Research Paper focused on the Spanish media discourse following the Paris and Brussels terror attacks. The paper analyzes discourse pieces -EL PAIS newspaper front pages - through the discourse analysis methodology proposed by post-structuralist scholar Lene Hansen, identifying two paralel narratives: "War on Terror" and "Terror as Crime" and capturing security policy-making decision implications of either media discourse.

The role of the military as the “protector” of state and society is a standard assertion of
international relations. Within securitization theory, the association of an issue with the military is
both an identification of threat and an endorsement of the military as source of “safety”. In recent
conflicts, however, this status of the military as legitimate potential object of violence has been
destabilized by unpopular wars and the rise of societal discourses which frame soldiers not as
legitimate combatants, but as endangered by their state's foreign policy. Drawing upon
securitization theory, this paper seeks to map the various constructions of troops-as-vulnerable
with the aim of examining the forms of political identity and foreign/military policy both
facilitated and constrained by such discourses within the context of a single case study – the US
during the “global way on terror”. Overall, it is argued that American soldiers are the subject of a
securitizing move by societal actors, including peace organizations and “support the troops”
movements, which distinguishes the abstract “troops” from the overarching state and/or
government. The paper concludes by examining the implications of this apparent collapse of
securitized referent object and institutional means of security for broader securitization theory.

This paper argues that extremist groups use a mechanism
of security to gain legitimacy for their actions. I would
like to draw attention to the danger represented by such
groups, a danger that goes directly to the heart of the
state’s monopoly of violence.

This study explores depictions of Islam in Senate rhetoric across the 106 th (1999–2000) and 111 th (2009–2010) Congresses. These two periods are compared to consider overall patterns in congressional discourse on Islam and to explore how the September 11 th , 2001 attacks might have shaped this discourse. The study also examines the possible effects of ideology, partisanship, and senator religious affiliation on representations of Islam. The article ultimately suggests that despite some important post-September 11 shifts in Senate rhetoric pertaining to Islam, persistent themes regarding securitization, Orientalist tendencies, moderate-fundamentalist dichotomizations, and ideological divisions merit scrutiny. This study contributes to work on Congress, religion, and American politics by assessing trends in the discursive representation of Islam by United States legislators. Theoretically, the article draws upon the Copenhagen School in International Relations to assess the securitization of Islam within legislative debates and to develop the related concept of normalization.

Jelen tanulmány a biztonságiasítás koncepcióját alkalmazva kívánja bemutatni a kulturális örökség konfliktuszónákban való védelmének a nemzetközi béke és biztonság szempontjából is releváns kihívássá válását, amelyet egyrészt a közel-keleti és afrikai régióban tevékenykedő terrorszervezetek által elkövetett cselekmények, másrészt a térségben zajló fegyveres konfliktusok által okozott járulékos veszteségek nagy volumene generált. Három nemzetközi szervezet (ENSZ, UNESCO, EU) retorikájának, illetve döntéseinek vizsgálata alapján jól látszik a nemzetközi elköteleződés mind a kulturális javak fizikai megsemmisítésének megakadályozása, mind az illegális kereskedelem felszámolása érdekében, s azok békefenntartó műveletekbe való integrációja is lehetségessé vált.

***

By applying the concept of securitization, the paper aims to present how the protection of cultural heritage in conflict zones has been becoming a relevant challenge from the point of view of international peace and security, generated by the large volume of both the deliberate destructions of terrorist group active in the Middle Eastern and African region and the collateral damages of the armed conflicts in the area. Through the examination of the rhetoric and decisions of three international organisations (UN, UNESCO, EU), we can clearly see the evolving international commitment to stop both the physical destruction and the illicit trade of cultural property, and also, their integration in peacekeeping operations has become possible.

In International Relations debates’ we often deal with ‘security’, in both realist and idealist approaches. From Hobbes politics has been concerned about security issues of states and other organizations. Yet, little effort has been made to clarify theoretically what ‘security’ means, and only recent contributions have moved in such direction. Theories of IR have always been polarised between two core concepts: power and peace. These concepts developed mainly during Cold War and have provided narrow views of international affairs, while an approach based on security could deal better with global complexities.
The Copenhagen Security School has provided new frameworks for an enlarged concept of security. It offers an explication of the concept from a constructivist perspective, and this can build our deeper theoretical understanding of ‘security’. Such comprehension would enhance IR debates and it would improve the conditions at which decision-makers elaborate security policies.

As the COVID-19 pandemic accelerates its propagation across the world, extraordinary measures are being taken by every single government: drastic confinement is ordered, massive liquidities are injected in national economies, the army is deployed in the streets, borders are closed, and the State pays private sector salaries. These are unprecedented developments for peace time. In this blog post, I do not call into question the effectiveness of these measures to tackle the epidemic; rather, I build on Pandemipolitics' first post (Heathershaw) to further unpack the process by which they have been presented as necessary by governments, and widely accepted as such by populations. Specifically, I understand this as a clear case of securitization, which I suggest allows us to highlight some of the less obvious socio-political implications the pandemic will have on the longer run.

Tässä artikkelissa ehdotetaan Ole Wæverin turvallistamisteorian2
ja Sujian Guon totalitaaristen poliittisten järjestelmien mallin3 yhdistämistä
totalitaaristen poliittisten reaalijärjestelmien luonteen
mahdollisen muutoksen arvioinnin työkaluksi; Guon makromallin
rakenneanalyysi ohjaisi totalitaaristen järjestelmien4 “kovan ytimen”
elementtien turvallistamisen mikrotason analyysia tässä
lähestymistavassa. Ajatuksena on, että reaalijärjestelmissä turvallistamista
ja turvallisuusuhkien sosiaalista rakentamista hyödynnetään
totalitaarisen järjestelmän “suojavyöllä” olevien “toimintakeinojen”
kohteiden määrittämisessä ja maalintamisessa, mikä
mahdollistaa järjestelmän ydinarvojen ja niiden uhkien arvioinnin
tämän turvallistamisprosessin analyysin kautta. Näiden lähestymistapojen
hypoteesina on, että mikäli turvallistamisprosessissa
turvallisuuden viitekohteena on totalitaarisen järjestelmän kovan
ytimen elementtejä, analyysi viittaisi järjestelmän totalitaarisen
luonteen säilymiseen. Jos taas totalitaarisen järjestelmän ydinarvoja
ei enää turvallisteta, analyysi viittaisi järjestelmän heikkenemiseen
tai jopa järjestelmämuutokseen.

This paper is an early draft version of what subsequently became chapter 1 of my 2010 book Security and the Environment: Securitisation Theory and US Environmental Security Policy). If you wish to cite the paper, please refer to the published version. Note further that this chapter supersedes my conference papers R. Taureck “Securitisation theory - The Story so far: Theoretical inheritance and what it means to be a post-structural realist” International Studies Association 47th Annual Convention 22-25. March 2006 San Diego, US & R. Floyd “Contradiction or Continuity: Predicting the future of securitisation theory?”, paper presented at the 2007 International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Chicago, USA

This edited collection highlights the different meanings that have been attached to the notion of energy security and how it is taken to refer to different objects. Official policy definitions of energy security are broadly similar across countries and emphasize the reliability and affordability of access to sufficient energy resources for a community to uphold its normal economic and social functions. However, perceptions of energy security vary between states causing different actions to be taken, both in international relations and in domestic politics.

Energy Security in Europe moves the policy debates on energy security beyond a consideration of its seemingly objective nature. It also provides a series of contributions that shed light on the conditions under which similar material factors are met with very different energy security policies and divergent discourses across Europe. Furthermore, it problematizes established notions prevalent in energy security studies, such as whether energy security is ‘geopolitical’, and an element of high politics, or purely ‘economic’, and should be left for the markets to regulate.

This book will be of particular relevance to students and academics in the fields of energy studies and political science seeking to understand the divergence in perspectives and understandings of energy security challenges between EU member states and in multilateral relationships between the EU as a whole.

Este livro resulta da constatação da existência de um número crescente de trabalhos desenvolvidos por autores de língua portuguesa com base na abordagem teórica da escola de Copenhaga. Pretende reunir contributos que investigam as principais linhas temáticas associadas a esta escola, nomeadamente os processos de securitização e des-securitização, os setores de segurança e os complexos regionais. Apesar de este ser o ponto de partida, o volume inclui igualmente abordagens críticas à escola de Copenhaga, que permitirão uma visão mais abrangente das potencialidades e limitações deste quadro teórico. Esta proposta visa assim contribuir para o debate académico em português sobre teorias de Estudos de Segurança.

By using the inspirations based on the Copenhagen School theory of cybersecurity, the author argued that the definition and theory of cybersecurity are much more complex than just computer security. The author used three key referent objects; hypersecuritizations, everyday security practices, and technifications to analyze and reference with the given the case study of the 2007 “cyberwar’’ against Estonia as an example to apply with the framework of Deibert and Saco, then identify the matters into numerous discourses which used for argumentation with other boundaries.

Security remains to be one of the controversial and most-debated concepts following the end of the Cold-war and the post 9/11 era. Many scholars have continuously provided detailed insights into every angle of security, but the most admired and highly-discussed theories are based on the realm of Copenhagen School of Security Studies, where scholars such as Ole Weaver, Barry Buzan, and De Wilde have enormously contributed to the enrichment of ideas and concepts concerning security. Buzan’s contribution to exploring most outlooks of security is among his key achievements; two of his outstanding works are ‘Wide Versus Narrow’ and ‘Securitization’ concepts that have been presented jointly by Ole Weaver.

This article examines the troubled relationship between Tibetan Buddhism and the Chinese state since 1949. In the history of this relationship, a cyclical pattern of Chinese attempts, both violently assimilative and subtly corrosive, to control Tibetan Buddhism and a multifaceted Tibetan resistance to defend their religious heritage, will be revealed. This article will develop a security-based logic for that cyclical dynamic. For these purposes, a two-level analytical framework will be applied. First, the framework of the insecurity dilemma will be used to draw the broad outlines of the historical cycles of repression and resistance. However, the insecurity dilemma does not look inside the concept of security and it is not helpful to establish how Tibetan Buddhism became a security issue in the first place and continues to retain that status. The theory of securitisation is best suited to perform this analytical task. As such, the cycles of Chinese repression and Tibetan resistance fundamentally originate from the incessant securitisation of Tibetan Buddhism by the Chinese state and its apparatchiks. The paper also considers the why, how, and who of this securitisation, setting the stage for a future research project taking up the analytical effort to study the why, how and who of a potential desecuritisation of all things Tibetan, including Tibetan Buddhism, and its benefits for resolving the protracted Sino-Tibetan conflict.

Toby Matthiesen, "Sectarianization as Securitization: Identity Politics and Counter-Revolution in Bahrain", in: Nader Hashemi and Danny Postel (eds.), Sectarianization: Mapping the New Politics of the Middle East (London: Hurst & Co, 2017), 199-214.


The small island nation of Bahrain provides one of the most salient case studies of the sectarianization process. Bahrain has a long history of organized political opposition that has taken the form of street protests, strikes, trade unions, and underground political parties, as well as in a parliament with limited powers (1973–1975 and since 2001). Anti-colonial nationalist and leftist movements of
various ideological persuasions that mobilized many Bahrainis since the
1950s were cross-sectarian. The parliament of 1973–1975, under the
influence of communists and Ba‘athists, started to challenge the authoritarian system of government of the minority Sunni Al Khalifa family and the pervasive powers of the security services. As a result, parliament was disbanded in the summer of 1975, elections were postponed indefinitely, and political opposition was driven underground. The decline of these cross-sectarian and secular political movements and theThereafter, Sunni Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Shi’i Islamist movements, such as the Da‘wa Party, Hizbullah (the Line of Imam (Khomeini), or Khat al-Imam), and the so-called Shirazi movement (named after its spiritual guide, Muhammad Mahdi al-Shirazi), gained a foothold in Bahrain. The state built up Sunni Islamic movements as a counter-weight to the Shi’i Islamic movements that emerged after Iran’s 1979 revolution. Sunni Islamic groups, therefore, by and large did not mobilize in opposition to the monarchy. And
while the uprising in 2011 started as a cross-sectarian mobilization, and
the opposition tried to use national and not sectarian slogans, many
Sunnis were frightened by it, and more or less supported the crackdown.
Particularly as repression started to target the Shi’a as a group, many
Shi’a, including some elite Shi’a families, started to see the state as an
adversary. The regime used all means at its disposal, including the media, the security forces, and even vigilante groups, to scare the Sunnis with the specter of a Shi’a takeover, and to portray the uprising as led by Shi’a radicals who wanted to establish an Iranian-style Islamic republic.
Sectarianization in Bahrain is thus a deliberate and long-term strategy
by the regime to undermine the possibility of a broad-based coalition
demanding democratic change. But sectarianization and disproportionate policing of Shi’a residential areas has also sustained and strengthened opposition to the state amongst Shi’a Bahrainis, thereby undermining security and perpetuating a sectarian dynamic.

Security has generally posed a challenge to those who have attempted to reach an ideal, comprehensive and encompassing definition of the concept. Orthodox perspectives have mainly focused on the state as a “harbinger” of security that defends its territory and citizens against external enemies through the acquisition of military grade weapons. Neorealist theorist, Stephen Walt defines security as “the study of threat, use, and control of military force” (1991, 212). Since security is a seemingly self-explanatory concept, it has also been rather underdeveloped to the point that International Relations theorist Barry Buzan argues that before the ‘80s, “conceptual literature on security” was rather neglected if not, a sorely absent field of inquiry (1983, 3-4). Buzan himself, along with Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde, proposed a new research agenda for security as evidenced in the book: “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” (1997). These authors are regarded as the main representatives of what today we refer to as the Copenhagen School of Security Studies. The present article provides an analysis of the Copenhagen School’s “good practices” on security and securitization as speech acts (Mutimer 2016, 93) and intersubjective processes (de Graaf 2011, 11), in order to address the performative power behind the contemporaneous security architecture and the security practices of threat construction.

El presente trabajo evalúa los postulados y la aplicación de la teoría de securitización (TS) de la Escuela de Copenhague (Wæver, Buzan y de Wilde) para indagar sobre aquellos cuestionamientos que posicionan a esta como una teoría conservadora, dentro de los estudios de seguridad, por adoptar y reforzar principios propios de los enfoques tradicionales. Con dicho fin, se examina cómo afecta a la TS adoptar las concepciones de la seguridad como supervivencia y la producción de la seguridad a través de procesos intersubjetivos de construcción de amenazas, bajo la lógica de la teoría de los actos del habla y los roles y funciones determinados para agentes securitizadores y audiencias que privilegian las experiencias de un grupo, en detrimento de otros. Con base en el análisis de esos postulados, en este artículo se critica la metodología propuesta por dicha escuela, que restringe el cambio del objeto de referencia y la ampliación de la agenda de seguridad.

In this article, I show how the term lawfare is being deployed as a speech act in order to encode the field of human rights as a national security threat. The objective, I claim, is to hinder the work of human rights organizations that produce and disseminate knowledge about social wrongs perpetrated by military personnel and government officials, particularly evidence of acts emanating from the global war on terrorism—such as torture and extrajudicial executions—that constitute war crimes and can be presented in courts that exercise universal jurisdiction. Using Israel as a case study, I investigate the local and global dimensions of the securitization processes, focusing on how different securitizing actors—academics, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, policy makers, and legislators—mobilize the media, shape public opinion, lobby legislators and policy makers, introduce new laws, and pressure donors to pave the way for a form of exceptional intervention to limit the scope of human rights work.

In this research I assess the impact of the recently discovered gas reserves south off Cyprus on the escalation of the Cyprus conflict. I examine the ideational dynamics underpinning the conflict-inducing role of natural resources. Theoretically motivated by the discursive shift in conflict studies, I prioritise the collectively shared meanings of the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot opinion-leaders on the gas reserves and how these justify their conflictual strategies. To uncover these discourses, I apply Q-methodology, a research design tailor-made to ‘measure’ human subjectivity. I distinguish five distinct discourses. With respect to the Greek-Cypriot side, I identify (a) ‘gas boosting our geopolitical standing’, which highlights the sovereignty attributes of the natural resources, (b) ‘pipe-dreams and imported nationalisms’, which acknowledges the opportunistic motives behind the ‘geopolitical overtones’ of the Greek-Cypriot side, and (c) ‘resentment matters’, which emphasizes the Greek-Cypriot grievances. As regards the Turkish-Cypriot side, I came across two different discourses: (e) ‘gas stimulating political equality’, where Turkish-Cypriots stress their grievances over their lack of international status and the opportunities that arise from the gas reserves discovery to reverse their international isolation, and (f) ‘micro-politics’, which highlights the political opportunism of particular policymakers who capitalize on the tensions in order to serve their political careers in the face of domestic turbulence. These discourses provide a holistic framework regarding the ideational factors underpinning the conflict-inducing role of natural resources within the protracted Cyprus conflict.

This article offers a process-mechanism explanation of securitization. To make the case for a process-mechanism account more concrete, I use interpretivist process tracing to explain the crisis episode of the Sun Sea, a Thai cargo ship carrying Sri Lankan asylum-seekers, and the securitization of irregular migration in Canada. Drawing on interviews and grey literature, the article shows how securitization was possible and under what conditions, and argues that ideational dispositions of security organizations induced state officials toward a security interpretation of the the Sun Sea. The article aims to demonstrate that process-mechanism explanations represent a compelling methodological alternative with which to trace and explain securitization. The article sees itself as part of a broader refinement of a sociological variant of securitization theory. It seeks to examine and enhance the contribution that this 'post-Copenhagen' approach – its core assumptions and theoretical framework – makes to the analysis of securitization.

The end of the Cold War and the emergency of the Globalization have transformed International Relations and with it the nature of the security, which has supposed a change
in security studies. This article looks for to expose the basic concepts and the fundamental categories of one of the theories that have more contributed to explain the new roll of the security in the globalization. The Copenhagen School is like an original and comprehensive paradigm, distinguishing itself like a thought center that has given a renewed impulse to ...

‫األمن‬ ‫كوبنهاجن‬ ‫ملدرسة‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫طبق‬ ‫خطابي‬ ‫"فعل‬ Act of Speech " ‫فهو‬ ‫اجتماعية‬ ‫لعملية‬ ‫نتيجة‬ ‫بل‬ ‫موضوعية‬ ‫حالة‬ ‫ليس‬ ‫تتمثل‬ ‫معينة‬ ‫أي‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫لقضايا‬ ‫االجتماعي‬ ‫البناء‬ ‫في‬ ‫ن)‬ َ ‫م‬ ‫ن‬ ِ ‫وم‬ ‫تأمينه‬ ‫يمكن‬ ‫الذي‬ ‫(ما‬ ‫تحديد‬ 4 ، ‫اك‬ ‫إدر‬ ‫عملية‬ ‫وبالتالي‬ ‫الدولية‬ ‫العالقات‬ ‫أن‬ ‫هي‬ ‫النظرية‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫في‬ ‫الرئيسية‬ ‫والحجة‬ ‫موضوعية.‬ ‫دواعي‬ ‫على‬ ‫قائمة‬ ‫بالضرورة‬ ‫وليست‬ ‫ذاتي‬ ‫ق‬ ‫تصبح‬ ‫الفواعل‬ ‫أحد‬ ‫ألن‬ ‫باألحرى‬ ‫ولكن‬ ‫الدولة،‬ ‫على‬ ‫ا‬ ًّ ‫موضوعي‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫تهديد‬ ‫يشكل‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫شيئ‬ ‫هناك‬ ‫أن‬ ‫بسبب‬ ‫ليس‬ ‫أمن،‬ ‫ضية‬ ‫عرف‬ ‫قد‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫مع‬ ‫التعامل‬ ‫في‬ ‫الحق‬ ‫لديه‬ ‫أن‬ ‫الفاعل‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫يدعي‬ ‫هذا،‬ ‫خالل‬ ‫ومن‬ ‫للبقاء.‬ ‫ا‬ ًّ ‫وجودي‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫تهديد‬ ‫باعتبارها‬ ‫"استثنائية"‬ ‫معتادة‬ ‫غير‬ ‫أدوات‬ ‫خالل‬ ‫من‬ ‫التهديد‬ ‫القضية/‬ ‫لتأم‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫يصبح‬ ‫وعليه‬ ‫بالتهديد.‬ ‫املعني‬ ‫الكيان‬ ‫بقاء‬ ‫ين‬ ‫النحو‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫على‬ ‫تعريفها‬ ‫يتم‬ ‫أن‬ ‫بمجرد‬ ‫أمن‬ ‫قضية‬ ‫قضية‬ ‫أي‬ ‫تصبح‬ ‫أن‬ ‫فبمجرد‬ ‫املرجعية،‬ ‫ذاتية‬ ‫ممارسة‬ 5 ‫منه‬ ‫ين‬ ‫اآلخر‬ ‫حرمان‬ ‫يتم‬ ‫لم‬ ‫إذ‬ ‫حرمان‬ ‫يتم‬ ‫لم‬ ‫إذ‬ ‫حال‬ ‫في‬ ‫فقط‬ ‫يتحقق‬ ‫األمن‬ . ‫"نظرية‬ ‫يقدم‬ ‫االنعتاق‬ ‫أن‬ ‫بوث‬ ‫ويرى‬ ‫للسياسة‬ ‫تقدمية‬ ‫وبالتالي‬ ‫للوجود،‬ ‫الدائم‬ ‫األمل‬ ‫فهو‬ ‫املقاومة..‬ ‫لسياسة‬ ً ‫دليال‬ ‫ويعطي‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫سياسات‬ ‫يقدم‬ ‫أنه‬ ‫إذ‬ ، ‫واحدة‬ ‫لعملة‬ ‫وجهين‬ ‫واالنعتاق‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫أن‬ ‫يرى‬ ‫نعيش‬ ‫أن‬ ‫هو‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫فإن‬ ‫نحيا،‬ ‫أن‬ ‫هو‬ ‫البقاء‬ ‫كان‬ ‫وإذا‬ ، 8 . ‫ذاتهما،‬ ‫في‬ ‫وسلبية‬ ‫إيجابية‬ ‫حاالت‬ ‫ليست‬ ‫وتفكيكها‬ ‫األمننة‬ ‫أن‬ ‫فلويد‬ ‫ريتا‬ ‫وترى‬ ‫األخالقي‬ ‫الخطأ‬ ‫أو‬ ‫الصحة‬ ‫فإن‬ ‫وبالتالي‬ ‫عواقبهما‬ ‫على‬ ‫النهاية‬ ‫في‬ ‫يعتمد‬ ‫إنما‬ ‫منهما،‬ ‫لكل‬ ‫حال‬ ‫في‬ ‫ا‬ ًّ ‫أخالقي‬ ‫صحيحة‬ ‫األمننة‬ ‫أن‬ ‫فلويد‬ ‫وترى‬ . ‫ثالثة‬ ‫تحققت‬ ‫شروط‬ 9 : 1 -‫أم‬ ‫بهذا‬ ‫اك‬ ‫إدر‬ ‫هناك‬ ‫كان‬ ‫سواء‬ ‫النظام،‬ ‫أو‬ ‫الفاعلين‬ ‫أحد‬ ‫بقاء‬ ‫يهدد‬ ‫نحو‬ ‫على‬ ‫موضوعي‬ ‫تهديد‬ ‫هناك‬ ‫كان‬ ‫إذا‬ ‫ال.‬ 2 -‫يوفر‬ ‫أن‬ ‫فيها‬ ‫يستطيع‬ ‫التي‬ ‫الحالة‬ ‫وهي‬ ‫األخالقية‬ ‫بالشرعية‬ ‫يحظى‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫كيان‬ ‫باألمن‬ ‫املعني‬ ‫الكيان‬ ‫يكون‬ ‫أن‬ ‫اإلنسان.‬ ‫حاجات‬ ‫إرضاء‬ ‫على‬ ‫قادرة‬ ‫إنسانية‬ ‫رفاهة‬ 3 -‫نواياه.‬ ‫في‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫مخلص‬ ‫األمني‬ ‫الفاعل‬ ‫يكون‬ ‫وأن‬ ‫املهدد،‬ ‫ات‬ ‫قدر‬ ‫مع‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫متناسب‬ ‫التهديد‬ ‫على‬ ‫األمني‬ ‫الرد‬ ‫يكون‬ ‫أن‬ ‫الش‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫وتساعد‬ ‫أنهم‬ ‫أم‬ ‫باألمن،‬ ‫املعني‬ ‫الكيان‬ ‫حماية‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫بالفعل‬ ‫يسعون‬ ‫الدولة‬ ‫قادة‬ ‫كان‬ ‫إذا‬ ‫ما‬ ‫تحديد‬ ‫على‬ ‫روط‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫بين‬ ‫تعادل‬ ‫ال‬ ‫وبالتالي‬ ‫الدولة،‬ ‫ال‬ ‫لألمن‬ ‫النهائي‬ ‫الهدف‬ ‫هو‬ ‫الفرد‬ ‫أن‬ ‫على‬ ‫فلويد‬ ‫وتشدد‬ ‫مختلفة.‬ ‫ألسباب‬ ‫يأمننوه‬ ‫فه‬ ‫والرفاهة،‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫بين‬ ‫بل‬ ‫كوبنهاجن‬ ‫مدرسة‬ ‫حال‬ ‫كما‬ ‫والبقاء‬ ‫غاياتهم‬ ‫تحقيق‬ ‫على‬ ‫البشر‬ ‫تساعد‬ ‫التي‬ ‫للحرية‬ ‫شرط‬ ‫و‬ ‫االزدهار.‬ ‫وعلى‬ ‫خطابي‬ ‫فعل‬ ‫هو‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫أن‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫بذهابها‬ Act of Speech ‫أن‬ ‫ينبغي‬ ‫األمننة‬ ‫عملية‬ ‫اسة‬ ‫لدر‬ ‫أنه‬ ‫كوبنهاجن‬ ‫مدرسة‬ ‫ترى‬ ، ‫باريس‬ ‫مدرسة‬ ‫منظري‬ ‫أن‬ ‫غير‬ ‫السياسية.‬ ‫والنخب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫السياس‬ ‫الخطاب‬ ‫ندرس‬ 10 ‫يرون‬ ‫يتعلق‬ ‫ال‬ ‫األمر‬ ‫أن‬ ‫بالخطب‬ ‫والبنى‬ ‫ات‬ ‫ار‬ ‫بالقر‬ ‫أكبر‬ ‫بشكل‬ ‫تتعلق‬ ‫ولكنها‬ ‫فقط،‬ ‫الجمهور‬ ‫وموافقة‬ ‫قبول‬ ‫تحصد‬ ‫التي‬ ‫الناجحة‬ ‫السياسية‬ ‫الفيبريبة‬ ‫األنماط‬ ‫خاصة‬ ‫اليومية‬ ‫السياسة‬ ‫نمط‬ ‫تشكل‬ ‫التي‬ ‫اطية‬ ‫البيروقر‬ Weberian Routines ‫بالترشيد‬ ‫املتعلقة‬ ‫التكنولوجيا‬ ‫وباستخدام‬ ‫املوارد‬ ‫وإدارة‬ ‫البيانات‬ ‫قواعد‬ ‫خالل‬ ‫من‬ ‫بعد‬ ‫عن‬ ‫وبالرقابة‬ ‫بالتواصل‬ ‫املتعلقة‬ ‫تلك‬ ‫خاصة‬ ‫املعلومات.‬ ‫تداول‬ ‫وسرعة‬ ‫و‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ا‬ ‫م‬ ‫ت‬ ‫باريس‬ ‫مدرسة‬ ‫واملعاقبة‬ ‫النظام‬ ‫عن‬ ‫فوكو‬ ‫ميشيل‬ ‫أفكار‬ ‫بتطوير‬ ‫تجليات‬ ‫اسة‬ ‫لدر‬ ‫األمننة‬ ‫الغرب‬ ‫في‬ ‫اطية‬ ‫الديمقر‬ ‫الحكومات‬ ‫اقبة‬ ‫مر‬ ‫في‬ ‫اد،‬ ‫األفر‬ ‫حركة‬ ‫لحركة‬ ‫فعرفتها‬ ‫باعتبارها‬ ‫م‬ ‫في‬ ‫للتحكم‬ ‫مارسات‬ ‫وراء‬ ‫فيما‬ ‫تمتد‬ ‫التي‬ ‫العامة‬ ‫اطية‬ ‫البيروقر‬ ‫عمل‬ ‫نمط‬ ‫العملية‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫وتمثل‬ ‫وتعقبهم،‬ ‫متابعتهم‬ ‫خالل‬ ‫من‬ ‫السكان‬ ‫حركة‬ ‫تقنيات‬ ‫يستخدمون‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫إدارة‬ ‫في‬ ‫متخصصون‬ ‫مهنيون‬ ‫األعمال‬ ‫بهذه‬ ‫ويقوم‬ ‫شبكات.‬ ‫في‬ ‫لتعمل‬ ‫الوطنية‬ ‫حدودها‬ ‫عملهم‬ ‫أن‬ ‫ويدعون‬ ‫متقدمة‬ ‫اقبة‬ ‫ومر‬ ‫اتصاالت‬ ‫املهاجرون‬ ‫يمثلها‬ ‫التي‬ ‫املستقبلية‬ ‫والتهديدات‬ ‫املخاطر‬ ‫تقييم‬ ‫شأنه‬ ‫من‬ ‫فيهم.‬ ‫املرغوب‬ ‫غير‬ ‫واألجانب‬ 8 Ali Diskaya, Ibid. 9 Rita Floyd, Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitization theory, Security Dialogue 42(4-5) P 428. 10 Didier Bigo, P. 124. II . ‫العام‬ ‫واملجال‬ ‫السياسة‬ ‫على‬ ‫األمننة‬ ‫انعكاسات‬ ‫سبتمبر‬ ‫من‬ ‫عشر‬ ‫الحادي‬ ‫أحداث‬ ‫أعقاب‬ ‫في‬ ‫األمننة‬ ‫مفهوم‬ ‫استخدام‬ ‫شاع‬ 2001 ، ‫العالمي‬ ‫النظام‬ ‫البيئة‬ ‫وفرت‬ ‫حيث‬ ‫للجوء‬ ‫مالئمة‬ ‫بيئة‬ ‫وتمثلت‬ ‫املتحدة،‬ ‫الواليات‬ ‫ضرب‬ ‫الذي‬ ‫اإلرهاب‬ ‫خطر‬ ‫على‬ ‫للقضاء‬ ‫استثنائية‬ ‫اءات‬ ‫إجر‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫اإلرهاب‬ ‫على‬ ‫عاملية‬ ‫حرب‬ ‫شن‬ ‫في‬ ‫االستثنائية‬ ‫اءات‬ ‫اإلجر‬ ‫النظام‬ ‫عسكرة‬ ‫مثل‬ ‫مفاهيم‬ ‫األذهان‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫أعاد‬ ‫نحو‬ ‫على‬ . ‫أجند‬ ‫على‬ ‫األمن"‬ ‫ار‬ ‫"إقر‬ ‫أصبح‬ ‫حيث‬ ‫الغير،‬ ‫ي‬ ‫اض‬ ‫ألر‬ ‫املباشر‬ ‫االحتالل‬ ‫وعهود‬ ‫الدولي،‬ ‫الواليات‬ ‫وروجت‬ ‫الدولي،‬ ‫النظام‬ ‫ة‬ ‫خطاب‬ ‫خالل‬ ‫من‬ ‫الدولية‬ ‫املؤسسات‬ ‫خالل‬ ‫من‬ ‫اإلرهاب‬ ‫مكافحة‬ ‫خطاب‬ ‫أمنن"‬ ُ ‫امل‬ ‫"الفاعل‬ ‫باعتبارها‬ ‫املتحدة‬ ‫اإلرهاب‬ ‫خطر‬ ‫تصوير‬ ‫تم‬ ‫لقد‬ ‫نفسه.‬ ‫باملنطق‬ ‫تتعامل‬ ‫التي‬ ‫األصولية‬ ‫اإلرهابية‬ ‫الشبكات‬ ‫مقابلة‬ ‫في‬ ‫العداوة‬ ‫الصداقة/‬ ‫ا‬ ًّ ‫وجودي‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫تهديد‬ ‫باعتباره‬ ‫لتشن‬ ‫األمريكي‬ ‫الخطاب‬ ‫االستبدادية‬ ‫النظم‬ ‫التقطت‬ ‫ما‬ ‫وسرعان‬ ‫الغربية،‬ ‫باملجتمعات‬ ‫يحيق‬ ‫ار‬ ‫إقر‬ ‫تم‬ ‫نفسها،‬ ‫املتحدة‬ ‫الواليات‬ ‫وفي‬ ‫سلطتها.‬ ‫ار‬ ‫إلقر‬ ‫وسيلة‬ ‫ذلك‬ ‫فكان‬ ‫التطرف‬ ‫ملنع‬ ‫أو‬ ‫"اإلرهاب"‬ ‫على‬ ‫داخلية‬ ‫ا‬ ً ‫حرب‬ ‫الوطنية‬ ‫مرسوم‬ Patriot Act ‫استثن‬ ‫اءات‬ ‫بإجر‬ ‫القيام‬ ‫اإلدارة‬ ‫منح‬ ‫والذي‬ ‫ل‬ ‫الداخل‬ ‫في‬ ‫ائية‬ ‫ـ"‬ ‫األمن‬ ‫ار‬ ‫إقر‬ ‫تسفر‬ ‫ولم‬ ."

In this thesis, I sought to determine what language was used on the issue of immigration in the UK prior to the referendum on EU membership. This was accomplished via the use of a discourse analysis, which used the theoretical lense of securitization from the Copenhagen School of International Relations as constructed by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver. Securitization is a discursive process by which a population accepts an issue as being a matter of security and in need of actions outside of the political norm. This is done via the promotion of a particular issue as an existential threat to something held dear, which is known as a referent object. The period of analysis for this paper is from 1 June 2015 to 23 June 2016 and includes 4 political party manifestos from the 2015 parliamentary election, 22 parliamentary debates, 30 pronouncements from the UK Home Office, and 240 articles from the Daily Mail/MailOnline/The Mail on Sunday (for which full citations can be found in appendix 1 and 2). My findings include  several themes of securitization spread between these primary sources, such as: a consistent concern that the EU was a threat to UK border and immigration control, fear of eastern European immigrants (particularly of low skill), fear of a collapsing NHS and other social welfare services, fear of an inflating population and the effect immigrants are having on those projections, fear of asylum seekers being either economic migrants or potential terrorists, fear of immigrant criminality, and even a fear that the EU itself is at threat from the influx of refugees and migrants. These sentiments were spread between my units of analysis, but were most pronounced from a language perspective from articles in the Daily Mail/MailOnline/The Mail on Sunday. However, the actions proposed in the party manifestos of the Conservative and UKIP party called for actions which violated international norms and treaties, as well as domestic law, thus suggesting that a level of securitization had already taken place. Some of these changes were subsequently discussed and adopted in the course of parliamentary debates. The Home Office abstained from securitization language, but also served to provide guidance for and normalization of actions taken by the parliament that were outside normal political action. On a broader level, I wanted to use this analysis to gain a better insight into the way fear is used in political discourse. This analysis gave view into the way in which a general sense of societal fear can lead to laws that would not otherwise be possible in a more relaxed environment. I also found that the securitization of immigration was weaponized in an effort to persuade the public to vote ‘leave’ in the Brexit referendum.