Thierry Balzacq

The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context

The prime claim of the theory of securitization is that the articulation of security produces a specific threatening state of affairs. Within this theory, power is derived from the use of ‘appropriate’ words in conformity with established rules governing speech acts. I argue, however, that a speech act view of security does not provide adequate grounding upon which to examine security practices in ‘real situations’. For instance, many security utterances counter the ‘rule of sincerity’ and, the intrinsic power attributed to ‘security’ overlooks the objective context in which security agents are situated. As a corrective, I put forward three basic assumptions — (i) that an effective securitization is audience-centered; (ii) that securitization is context-dependent; (iii) that an effective securitization is power-laden. The insights gleaned from the investigation of these assumptions are progressively integrated into the pragmatic act of security, the value of which is to provide researchers in the field with a tractable number of variables to investigate in order to gain a better understanding of the linguistic manufacture of threats.

The Policy Tools of Securitization: Information Exchange, EU Foreign and Interior Policies

This article takes up where securitization theory left off, arguing that securitization can occur or evolve without the assent of an identifiable audience. To explain this puzzle, the article proposes that rather than investigating the construction of threats at the level of discourse, we should focus on the functions and implications of policy instruments used to meet a public problem (e.g. terrorism). In order to substantiate the framework offered here, the article examines the primary tool in the EUs fight against terrorism, information exchange. The conclusion suggests that the consequences of counter-terrorism have been de-politicization, intelligence-led policing and cross-pillarization.

The External Dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs

The Frontiers of Governance: Understanding the External Dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs T.Balzacq PART I: RECASTING INSTITUTIONS The Genesis of the European Neighbourhood Policy: Alternative Narratives, Bureaucratic Competitions J.Jeandesboz ENP and EMP: The Geopolitics of Enlargement Lite A.Hadfield PART II: REFRAMING GOVERNANCE The EU as a Rule of Law Promoter in the ENP N.Wichmann The ENP and Political Conditionality: Double Standard in EU Democracy Promotion? E.Baracani The Mediterranean Dimension of EUs Internal Security S.Wolff PART III: REDRAWING LINES The ENP and Security: Creating New Dividing Lines in Europe? R.Zaiotti Very Remote Control: Policing the Outer Perimeter of the Eastern Neighbourhood I.Gatev Values vs. Security?: A Human Security Perspective on the ENP S.Leonard

‘Securitization’ revisited: Theory and cases

Securitization theory seeks to explain the politics through which (1) the security character of public problems is established, (2) the social commitments resulting from the collective acceptance that a phenomenon is a threat are fixed and (3) 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. First, its main concepts and premises are critically discussed. This 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. First, notably thanks to empirical studies, securitization theory has significantly developed beyond its initial focus on the speech act. Second, 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 – with an ‘analytics of government’, which emphasizes practices and processes. Third, 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.

Introduction : 'What kind of theory - if any - is securitization?'

When international affairs seemed stuck in a state of (cold) war, how could politics regain its place? How could diplomacy get back to center stage, when it was asked to establish a common language for assessing (if disa-greeing about) events and finding compromises, while being, paradoxically, only able to function if such shared understandings already existed? As it happens, political practice gave some hints. German

What kind of theory – if any – is securitization?

One of the great appeals of securitization theory, and a major reason for its success, has been its usefulness as a tool for empirical research: an analytic framework capable of practical application. However, the development of securitization has raised several criticisms, the most important of which concern the nature of securitization theory. In fact, the appropriate methods, the research puzzles and type of evidence accepted all derive to a great extent from the kind of theory scholars bequeath their faith to. This Forum addresses the following questions: What type of theory (if any) is securitization? How many kinds of theories of securitization do we have? How can the differences between theories of securitization be drawn? What is the status of exceptionalism within securitization theories, and what difference does it make to their understandings of the relationship between security and politics? Finally, if securitization commands that leaders act now before it is too late, what status has temporality therein? Is temporality enabling securitization to absorb risk analysis or does it expose its inherent theoretical limits?

The significance of triangulation to critical security studies

The interest of critical approaches to security on ‘methods’ constitutes a decisive turn in a field once skeptical about issues of methods and methodology as a whole. The change is due in important part to a new generation of critical scholars, which aims to use empirics in order to develop, apply, or test a theory (Hansen 2006; Balzacq 2011, 38–53; Salter and Mutlu 2013). On the other hand, the concern with methods can also be regarded as a sign of ‘normalization’ in a Kuhnean sense. Surprisingly, however, critical studies on security tend to overlook methods that are usually associated with positivist epistemologies. There seems to be an unspoken consensus that critical studies are not amenable to approaches that lent credibility to traditional views of security (e.g., content analysis and processtracing). As such, the ‘epistemological chasm’ is translated into a methodological divide (Silverman 1997, 94). I argue that this separation is without foundation and of little if any concrete use. Drawing upon a theory that I know a bit – securitization – I show how a single method approach to securitization has sustained confirmation bias. However, this is encased in an argument whose implications are broader. I aim to develop an argument in favor of methodological triangulation, in the hope that it advances both our knowledge of the phenomenon analyzed and the theory mobilized.

The Frontiers of Governance: Understanding the External Dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs

In this chapter, I offer conceptual resources for understanding the content and rationales of the external dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs (ED-JHA).1 This is not an easy fix, however. From the outset, indeed, my task is complicated by the fact that there is an extraordinary variety of approaches which are assumed, or pretend to bear on the ED -JHA (compare Kelley, 2006; Wolff, 2008; Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, 2004; Lavenex, 2004; Del Sarto and Schumacher, 2005; Friis and Murphy, 1999). Theoretically, moreover, confusion arises because ED -JHA is not always carefully distinguished from EU foreign policy (but exceptions include Smith and Webber, 2008; Emerson, 2004). In fact, although the ED-JHA is often treated as an instrument of EU external policy, it is best thought of as a distinctive policy, with its own raison d’etre and mechanisms (cf. Christiansen et al., 2000; Balzacq, 2007; Kaunert, 2005; Smith, 2006; Guild and Van Selm, 2005; Gil-Bazo, 2006; Cremona, 2004; Monar, 2000; Mounier et al., 2007). Finally, the literature in this field is growing so fast that the first challenge that confronts students is to sort out, within limits, the central features of the ED-JHA. In this light, I submit, a framework which specifies the substance and the logic of the ED-JHA is very much required. This is what I do here.

The External Dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs: Tools, Processes, Outcomes

This working document offers a conceptual framework for understanding the processes underpinning the external dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs (ED-JHA). Practically, it defines how the export of JHA principles and norms inform the geopolitical ambitions of the EU, i.e. the use of space for political purposes, or the control and management of people, objects and movement. The author begins by investigating how the ENP reconfigures the ED-JHA, and then goes on to discuss various conceptual stances on governance, specifically institutionalism, constructivism, and policy instruments. To conclude he traces the evolution of this external dimension, emphasising, whenever possible, its continuities and bifurcations. Overall, the aim is to ascertain the extent to which conceptual designs clarify or advance our knowledge of the contents and rationales of the ED-JHA.

Differentiation and trust: Prüm and the institutional design of EU internal security

One recent but major policy occurrence in Justice and Home Affairs – the Treaty of Prüm (2005) – has developed within the framework of differentiated integration, thus reopening the debate over the impact of flexibility on EU integration, what causes it, and whether it should be sought by Member States at all. Whatever the consensus, the debate itself demonstrates that the very idea of differentiated integration deserves a renewed attention today ultimately because it affects, in one way or another, the performance of the EU. This article presents a critical analysis of the practice of differentiation in Justice and Home Affairs, by examining its forms, principles and effects. It discusses the literature on the subject, emphasizing the complexity of flexible integration, but reaches different conclusions. Thus, in contrast to the dominant argument, we argue that differentiation is not necessarily about deepening and/or widening EU integration. It is also, and sometimes primarily, about power and interests, two major elements that feed mistrust among Member States. In fact, we demonstrate that mistrust can cause poor differentiation. Moreover, in the absence of trust among Member States, flexibility might contribute to sub-optimal policies. Based on past research and interviews, we substantiate our claim by investigating the driving factors, rationales and consequences of the Treaty of Prüm on the institutionalization of a EU area of Freedom, Security and Justice.