1. M IGRATION AND T ERRORISM H UMAN R IGHTS AND S ECURITY Dr. Asta Maskaliūnaitė Baltic Defence College

2. A GENDA Security studies and migration in them Schools of security studies Concept of securitization Securitizing migration Migration-terrorism connection Terrorism as a phenomenon Impact of migration Debate/discussion

3. S ECURITY AND THREAT Security is defined as: Freedom from risk or danger Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear; confidence Freedom from danger to core values ‘Security is about survival’ (Buzan et al.) Security as ‘survival-plus’ (Ken Booth), i.e. survival and the ability to pursue cherished political and social ambitions Threat is defined as: a declaration of an intention to inflict harm: they carried out their threat to kill the hostages a strong possibility of something dangerous or unpleasant happening: the wet weather will bring a threat of flooding a person or thing that is regarded as dangerous and likely to inflict harm: unemployment is a serious threat to the social order

4. W HAT D OES I T M EAN TO BE S ECURE ? S ECURITY S TUDIES – ALWAYS CONCERNED WITH THREATS TO SURVIVAL Concerns of security studies Where does the threat originate? Organized state violence (military threats) Beyond the state What has to be secured? What is threatened?

5. A FTER THE END OF COLD WAR – EXPANSION OF SECURITY STUDIES Widening of the notion of security (including more threats) Deepening of the notion of security (including more actors, not only the state)

6. H UMAN SECURITY Narrow notion – freedom from fear Wide notion – freedom from want

7. S CHOOLS IN S ECURITY STUDIES Part of International Relations, works with the same theories. Realism: State is the only referent, power is the focus. More powerful = more secure BUT – security dilemma Liberalism: World can be a safer place Values and economic interconnection – key to stability of international system Democratic peace theory Human security important in its narrow version

8. S CHOOLS IN SECURITY STUDIES ( CONTINUED ) Constructivism Nothing IS a threat, but everything CAN BE a threat Security threats – constructed. E.g. Wendt ‘anarchy is what the states make of it’ – security dilemmas are self fulfilling prophesies. Securitization – process by which they are constructed

9. S ECURITIZATION AND DESECURITIZATION A security concern must be articulated as an existential threat. The act of securitization is successful only once the relevant audience has been convinced of the existential threat to the referent object. ‘Securitized’ issues require ‘extraordinary’ measures Desecuritization – the issue is no longer articulated as an existential threat

10. M IGRATION – SECURITIZED ISSUE Since 1970s in Europe migration increasingly seen through the lens of security Implications: Immigration lumped together with issues such as drug control and terrorism Migration and asylum policy left to security technocrats. Human rights discourse increasingly abandoned. After 9/11, every securitized issue linked to terrorism.

11. M IGRATION - TERRORISM NEXUS

12. W HAT IS TERRORISM ? D EFINITION NATO definition: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives Scientifics definitions

14. W HAT IS TERRORISM ? V ARIETIES OF AIMS AND MEANS Victim selection and preferred means of attack Indiscriminate/bombingSelective/assassinations RightistSingle-issue ReligiousLeftist ← Nationalist →

15. W HY IS IT SEEN AS AN IMPORTANT SECURITY THREAT ? Violence and Political Threat to the state monopoly of violence and thus the established order Has political impact

16. T ERRORISM AND MIGRATION Victor Orban, Hungarian PM, on July 25 – ‘There is a clear link between terrorism and illegal migration’

17. T ERRORISM AND MIGRATION. C ONNECTIONS Migration bringing in ‘terrorists’ Migration as a source of income for the terrorist groups Migration ‘breeding’ terrorists at home

18. D EBATE After the 9/11 attacks in the US, first in Europe, later in the US itself, there was a lot of discussion of the trade-offs between security and human rights. The connection between the two was made to resemble a old weighing scale where the gain on one side results in a corresponding loss on the other. Is it necessarily the case? How can terrorism be fought without compromising human rights? 30 minutes to brainstorm 3-5 minutes to present