Photo: Asterisk Kwon | Unsplash
Guest Author: Sheikh Asma Naser
I am Sheikh Asma Naser from Bangladesh, currently a master’s student of Peace and Conflict Studies at Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg. My background studies in World Religions and Culture and my present studies shaped my interest to analyse topics related to migration crisis and securitisation of refugees, since I eventually realised that one of the most vulnerable communities that suffer from wars and conflicts in different regions of the world are the internally displaced people and the refugees. I aspire to continue my research in a way that may, in the future, assist the policy makers to have a deeper understanding of the critical issues that shape negative perception towards refugees and enable them to address the issues, which further will contribute to de-securitisation of migration.
Introduction
In an age where the issue of migration is constantly connected with security, specifically in the political, social, and academic arena- Maciej Stępka’s book ‘Identifying Security Logics in the EU Policy Discourse- The “Migration Crisis” and the EU’[i] enables us to dissect the migration-security nexus at the EU level. Through his extraordinary work, the author wants to provide a holistic view of the internal complexities of the securitisation of migration in the EU. The author proposes an analytical framework that not only includes traditional notions of security (state of emergency) but also infuses newer concepts, such as risk, resilience, or humanitarianism, of security with the traditional ones. The reason behind proposing such a framework is to highlight the facts, that the EU does not exclusively depend on one logic to construct security, and different logics play different roles in securitising human mobility in its diverse dimensions. Specifically, the policy framing approach applied in the book allows to embrace diverse security logics that are combined and interpreted into policy-driven securitisation in the EU by different policy actors.
Summary and Strengths
As aforementioned, the book primarily urges a closer look at the traditional theory of securitisation proposed by the Copenhagen School which emphasised speech acts used by the powerful societal or political actors to stage an issue in the political arena in a certain way that gains saliency as a security problem that further requires exceptional security or defensive actions.[ii] Yet again the author endeavours to reveal the EU’s distinctive features of securitizing migration through an alternative reading of traditional securitisation, which he calls ‘securitisation as the work of framing’. From a theoretical lens, the book’s introduction of the securitisation of migration as a work of policy framing provides a refreshed perspective on securitisation. It can be considered as a paradigm shift where the author tries to depart from the traditional speech-act-based approach and suggests policy framing as the vehicle of securitisation, in which multiple policy actors are locked in a dialogical relationship – playing both the roles of actors and audience- representing often contradictory interpretations of security, which are marginalised and/or emphasised, accepted or rejected in this process.
Another strength of the book lies in its endeavour to bridge the gap between previous and recent studies. The author claims that although rich literature on the securitisation of migration already exists they generate only a partial image of the securitizing process by focusing on only one or two securitizing factors or security logic, for instance, by referring to the politics of fear and insecurity which portray migrants as an existential threat to the host community; [iii] or by focusing on securitising migrants through administrative practices and border control; [iv] [v] or by highlighting the technology-driven mode of securitisation through technologies of surveillance which focus traceability of risky migrants.[vi] [vii] Therefore, the author’s effort is to use this book to fulfil a missing link between the earlier and current studies, by viewing the securitizing process as a ‘complex tapestry’. The tapestry is woven with different threads of both traditional security logics which are rooted in the state of emergency, as well as emerging logics rooted in the concepts of risk, resilience, or human security. Therefore, the book is focused on providing a nuanced understanding of the tangled process of securitisation of migration at the EU level, and uncovering the co-existence of specific security interpretations underlying in that process.
However, delving deeper into the book’s contribution, as aforementioned, Stępka employs a frame-narrative approach to examine the policy texts on the ‘migration crisis’ produced by the core policy actors and agencies in the EU between the timeframe of 2014 and 2018. By using the approach, he presents two conceptual elaborations, namely ‘securitisation as the work of framing’ and ‘logics of security’. The conceptual framework aims to highlight that relying only on a traditional ‘exceptionalist’ and ‘speech-act’ driven approach is not sufficient while exploring securitisation at the EU policy level since various security interpretations, interests, and logics basically intertwine and struggle in the intersubjective construction of security and policymaking process. Moreover, the policy framing theory aims to verify what specific security logics the EU has been adopting or what the EU frame-narrative contains, that is further shaping a securitizing mindset around the ‘migration crisis’. In order to do that, the author examines each segment of the EU frame-narrative (diagnosis, evaluation, and conceptualisation of remedial actions) to find out the embedded security logics in them.
Stępka begins his research by highlighting the fact that securitisation of migration at the EU level did not occur in a vacuum or wasn’t a product of the traditional framework of ‘panic politics’, rather the development of the EU’s migration-security continuum took more than four decades. For instance, the introduction of the Schengen area and the three treaties, namely the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, and the Lisbon Treaty, are considered as enveloping human mobility with EU external and internal security and policy discourses and categorising different migrants in terms of manageable risks that need continuous control and surveillance. However, while analysing the security logics that co-existed in the EU frame narrative on the ‘migration crisis’ the author highlights four logics- risk-management, resilience, human security, and exceptionalist security. In the diagnosis and evaluation phase, human security and risk-management logics were found predominant while explaining the nature of the crisis, its root causes, referent objects (who or what is in need of protection) and causal security effects. For instance, in the early phases of the crisis, human-security-oriented logic was used that focused on the protection of all the migrants who were pushed from their native countries due to some threats or hardship they faced. This kind of logic normally places the ‘migration crisis’ and its root causes outside the EU territory and emphasises on transborder organised crime and lacking security at the EU external borders. On the other hand, the analysis shows that the moment migrants enter the EU zone there is a visible shift in interpretation, where risk-management-based logic is used to redefine the crisis which focuses on EU’s internal security, surveillance of human mobility and borders, which again frames irregular migrants as an object of risk that needs to be controlled for security purposes. Furthermore, Stępka points out that both human-security-oriented and risk management logics focus on organised crime and terrorism that connect the two logics and attune them with ‘exceptionalist’ security logic as both the logics interpret the crimes as threats to the existence and functionality of the EU region and also a key facilitator for the crisis which is exploiting the tragic situation of migrants and the organisational inadequacy of EU border and migration policies.
In the remedial action phase, where interpretations from the previous two segments are conceptualised into policy responses, the prevalence of risk-management logic is analysed by the author. In this phase, the EU institutionalised two forms of resilience, internal and external. Internal resilience focuses on the sufficiency of the EU’s asylum system (relocation, resettlement, CEAS), to ensure its strength to withstand an abrupt rise in asylum applications and also its ability to sort out ‘bogus asylum seekers’ quickly. Whereas external resilience focuses on improving the social, economic, and political sectors of the countries of origin of the migrants, in other words, it is focused on removing the push factors for migration. This segment consists of very limited traces of human security logic, mostly its elements are combined with ‘exceptionalist’ security logic only to legitimise robust militarised (EUNAVFOR ‘Sophia’) or economic (EU Trust Funds) measures.
However, through his research Stępka not only tries to embrace diverse security interpretations that basically are produced by different EU policy actors but also highlights (through ‘security as the work of framing approach’) which security interpretations were used by which specific policy actors in each segment of the policymaking process. As a matter of fact, the analysis identifies how the EU actors are biased towards certain security logics and promoting them while interpreting the ‘migration crisis’. For instance, the European Parliament has been vocal in sponsoring human security logic to frame the crisis as a human tragedy and making incoming migrants the referent objects who are in need of protection. On the other hand, the European Commission has been using risk-centred logics to promote ideas about the management of migration inflows through more control at European external borders. The author’s analysis reveals the complexity of the EU policymaking environment where the securitisation process can neither be limited to only one security logic nor can one authoritative actor dictate the whole process. Moreover, the research demonstrates that the process depends on negotiations between several EU institutions, who use their power to shape their own securitising move by implementing diverse security logics.
Limitations: Alternative Explanations and Conceptualisations
Nevertheless, it is also important to look at some of its limitations. For instance, while Stępka identifies multiple security logics, critics might argue that by focusing primarily on security logics the author may have downplayed other influential factors. As Boswell (2007) analysed that migration policies are also significantly influenced by economic imperatives.[viii] For example, labour market demands (labour shortages or demographic challenges) at the EU often lead to the alignment of migration policies with economic needs.[ix] Additionally, another vital factor that often shapes migration policies in the EU is its complex political dynamics, for instance, political divisions among EU member states, especially over burden-sharing and asylum reform, may impact collective decision-making[x] and thus, influence migration policies. The author’s claims to capture the complexity of securitisation by using ‘securitizing as the work of framing’ can be argued. For instance, scholars like Benford and Snow (2000) demonstrated that framing processes can sometimes lack precision, making it challenging to delineate clear mechanisms and effects.[xi] Moreover, Stępka’s broad conceptualisation may have further obscured more specific dynamics of policy change and actor influence. For example, the author could have further enhanced his framing analysis by incorporating the significant interactions with non-EU actors, including international organisations, and NGOs, and thus, how they interact with EU security logics. For instance, the EU is committed to international policy frameworks (UN Global Compact in Migration) and therefore, it merges global responsibilities with regional policies. As Lavenex and Uçarer (2002) illustrated, how external actors play crucial roles in shaping EU migration policies through externalisation practices.[xii] Again, the author conducted interviews only with the representatives of EU institutions and agencies yet a more extensive use of empirical data, such as interviews with officials of INGOs or NGOs, and other global stakeholders could have solidified the claims made in the book as INGOs and NGOs actively work with EU institutions to ensure that migration policies embrace fundamental human rights and international obligations. [xiii]
Maciej Stępka’s work unequivocally occupies a valuable position within the broader context of existing literature on the securitisation of migration, since the book offers an innovative approach to understanding the securitisation of migration within the EU. The book should appeal to those who are interested in critical security studies, migration studies, and more specifically who want to look more deeply into the relation between migration and security. However, by engaging with broader literature and addressing some of the criticisms highlighted, Stępka’s framework could be further refined and enriched. Which may provide a more holistic understanding of the complex and multifaceted processes that shape migration and security policies in the EU and beyond. A holistic understanding will help to explore the reasons behind why and how the EU policymaking environment has become or is becoming more of an important arena for further securitisation of migration, or how migration is becoming an ideologically charged issue in the EU. It will further enhance the understanding of the motivations behind the enactments of EU policies and shed light on how as a result of the migration crisis there have been important developments in the migration-security nexus at the EU level.
References:
[i] Stepka, Maciej (2022) Identifying Security Logics in the EU Policy Discourse. The “Migration Crisis” and the EU. Springer Nature, Cham.
[ii] Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (1997). Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically untenable? The Copenhagen school replies. Review of International Studies, 23(02), 241–250. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097477
[iii] Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. Routledge
[iv] Bigo, D. (2002). Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease. Alternatives, 27(1_suppl), pp 63-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105 
[v] Bourbeau, P. (2014). Moving forward together: Logics of the securitisation process. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 43(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814541504
[vi] . Jeandesboz, J. (2016). Smartening border security in the European Union: An associational inquiry. Security Dialogue, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010616650226
[vii] Maguire, M. (2015). Migrants in the realm of experts: The migration-crime-terrorist nexus after 9/11. In G. Lazaridis & K. Wadia (Eds.), The securitisation of migration in the EU (pp. 62–87). Palgrave Macmillan
[viii] . Boswell, C. (2007). Migration control in Europe after 9/11: Explaining the absence of securitization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(3), pp 589-610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00722.x
[ix] . Tsourdi, E., Zardo, F., & Sayed, N. (2023). Funding the EU’s external migration policy: ‘Same old’ or potential for sustainable collaboration? [online]. https://www.epc.eu/content/PDF/2023/Funding_the_EUs_external_migration_policy_DP.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov 2024]
[x] European Commission. (2024). Understanding the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. [online] Migration and Home Affairs. Available at: https://homeaffairs.ec.europa.eu/news/understanding-eu-pact-migration-and-asylum-2024-05-29_en. [Accessed 18 Nov, 2024]
[xi] Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, pp 611-639. https://www.jstor.org/stable/223459
[xii] Lavenex, S., & Uçarer, E. M. (2002). Migration and the Externalities of European Integration. Lexington Books
[xiii] European Commission. (2024). Understanding the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. [online] Migration and Home Affairs. Available at: https://homeaffairs.ec.europa.eu/news/understanding-eu-pact-migration-and-asylum-2024-05-29_en. [Accessed 18 Nov, 2024]