µ6HFXULWL]DWLRQ¶UHYLVLWHG7KHRU\DQGFDVHV Thierry Balzacq, Scientific Director, The Institute for Strategic Research (IRS EM), F rench Ministry of Defense & Tocqueville Chair in International Relations, University of Namur, Belgium Sarah Léonard, Senior Lecturer, University of Dundee Jan Ruzicka Lecturer, Aberystwyth University

International Relations (forthcoming)

1

µ6HFXULWL]DWLRQ¶UHYLVLWHG7KHRU\Dnd cases

A bstract Securitization theory seeks to explain the politics through which: (i) the security character of public problems is established; (ii) the social commitments resulting from the collective acceptance that a phenomenon is a threat are fixed; and (iii) the possibility of a particular policy is created. In the last decade, research on securitization has grown significantly. The aim of this article is to evaluate the achievements of securitization theory. Firstly, its main concepts and premises are critically discussed. The article then proceeds to examine the empirical applications of securitization theory to a broad range of issues, as well as the theoretical implications of these studies. Finally, it discusses the main challenges faced by securitization scholars and puts forward strategies to overcome them. This article develops three inter-related arguments. Firstly, notably thanks to empirical studies, securitization theory has significantly developed beyond its initial focus on the speech act. Secondly, as a result, the distinctiveness of securitization theory currently lies in its capacity to articulate a specific approach to security - influenced by the speech act - ZLWK DQ µDQDO\WLFV RI JRYHUQPHQW¶ ZKLFK HPSKDVLVHV SUDFWLFHV DQG SUocesses. Thirdly, securitization theory faces three types of challenges, related respectively to theory, method and methodology. The capacity of scholars to overcome those will strongly influence the extent to which securitization theory will be able to make significant contributions to the debates in Security Studies and International Relations in the years to come.

2

Introduction )URP *HRUJH : %XVK¶V VXFFHVV LQ EULQJLQJ D PDMRULW\ RI $PHULFDQV WR DFFHSW WKH YLHZ WKDW 6DGGDP Hussein possessed a stock of active and easily deployable weapons of mass destruction, through the attempts by some European governments to present migrants as a threat to national cohesion, culture and welfare systems, to the differentiated reactions to environmental degradation and global warming amongst states, there is ample evidence that security issues do not necessarily reflect the objective, material FLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHZRUOG2IWHQVHFXULW\LVVXHVDUHWKHUHVXOWRIOHDGHUV¶HIIRUWVWRXQGHUVWDQGDQGVKDSH the world, which depHQGRQWKHDELOLW\RIDFRPPXQLW\WRUHFRQILJXUHµLWVMXVWDQGJRRGZD\RIOLIH¶1 The aim of securitization theory is to understand why and how this happens, as well as the effects that this process has on the life and the politics of a community.2 By offering a critical and systematic reading of the literature on securitization, this article seeks to assess the contribution of securitization theory to our understanding of both traditional and contemporary puzzles of security. More precisely, it reflects upon the main insights of securitization theory, identifies the challenges that it faces, and outlines the different directions that it might take in order to strengthen its theoretical core. One of the most cited definitions of securitization is the foOORZLQJ µZKHQ D VHFXULWL]LQJ DFWRU XVHV D UKHWRULF RI H[LVWHQWLDO WKUHDW DQG WKHUHE\ WDNHV DQ LVVXH RXW RI ZKDW XQGHU WKRVH FRQGLWLRQV LV ³QRUPDO SROLWLFV´ ZH KDYH D FDVH RI VHFXULWL]DWLRQ¶3 Other approaches to securitization do not subscribe to the sepDUDWLRQ EHWZHHQ µQRUPDO¶ DQG µH[FHSWLRQDO¶ SROLWLFV WKDW XQGHUSLQV WKLV GHILQLWLRQ )RU LQVWDQFH %DO]DFT DUJXHV WKDW VHFXULWL]DWLRQ LV µDQ DUWLFXODWHG DVVHPEODJH RI SUDFWLFHV ZKHUHE\ KHXULVWLF DUWHIDFWV (metaphors, policy tools, image repertoires, analogies, stereotypes, emotions, etc.) are contextually mobilised by a securitizing actor, who works to prompt an audience to build a coherent network of implications (feelings, sensations, thoughts, and intuitions) about the critical vulnerability of a referent REMHFWWKDWFRQFXUVZLWKWKHVHFXULWL]LQJDFWRU¶VUHDVRQVIRUFKRLFHVDQGDFWLRQVE\LQYHVWLQJWKHUHIHUHQW subject with such an aura of unprecedented threatening complexion that a customised policy must be LPPHGLDWHO\ XQGHUWDNHQ WR EORFN LW¶4 In sum, the key idea underlying securitization is that an issue is given sufficient saliency to win the assent of the audience, which enables those who are authorised to handle the issue to use whatever means they deem most appropriate. In other words, securitization combines the politics of threat design with that of threat management. Consequently, the core concepts of the theory are arguably the securitizing actor (i.e. the agent who presents an issue as a threat through a securitizing move), the referent subject (i.e. the entity that is 3

threatening), the referent object (i.e. the entity that is threatened), the audience (the agreement of which is necessary to confer an intersubjective status to the threat), the context and the adoption of distinctive policies µH[FHSWLRQDO¶RUQRW %XLOGLQJRQWKHVSHHFKDFWOLWHUDWXUHVHFXULWL]DWLRQWKHRU\LVEDVHGRQWKH SUHPLVHWKDWWKHZRUGµVHFXULW\¶KDVDSHUIRUPDWLYHFKDUDFWHU²that is, it does not only describe the world, but can also transform social reality. However, scholars disagree whether this performative power is LQWULQVLF WR WKH ZRUG µVHFXULW\¶ DQG LQGHSHQGHQW IURP WKH DXGLHQFH RU ZKHWKHU VHFXULW\ DFTXLUHV LWV performativity when used by particular actors in specific contexts.5 The story of securitization theory is usually recounted in this way: the so-FDOOHG µ&RSHQKDJHQ 6FKRRO¶ (CS) established the approach in the late 1980s, before others followed suit.6 That the use of the word µVHFXULWL]DWLRQ¶LQRUGHUWRGHVLJQDWHWKHOLQJXLVWLFFRQVWUXFWLRQRIVHFXULW\Lssues has had a considerable impact on security studies is undisputable. However, that is only part of the story. In other countries or academic fields, various scholars, mostly historians, sociologists and philosophers, had been examining the same process²namely, how social issues are designed², albeit using different conceptual apparatuses and theories. For instance, in the 1970s, Foucault and Delumeau examined the construction of social categories (such as abnormality, delinquency, and race, for Foucault; Jews, Blacks, Muslims, and women, for Delumeau), as well as their practical consequences.7 Moreover, in the United Kingdom and the United States, an innovative strand of sociology produced a large body of scholarship on the µFRQVWUXFWLRQRIVRFLDOSUREOHPV¶WKDWLVWKHFRQGLWLRQVUHJDUGHGE\DJLYHQFRPPXQLW\DVµXQGHVLUDEOH¶8 Finally, propaganda studies have to a large extent investigated the same questions, although they have GUDZQ RQ GLIIHUHQW VHWV RI VRXUFHV VXFK DV IUDPLQJ DQG µV\PEROLF SROLWLFV¶.9 Of course, none of these DSSURDFKHV HYHU XVHG WKH VSHFLILF WHUP µVHFXULWL]DWLRQ¶