Securitzing Moves within the Israeli-Iranian Conflict

Contents

1. Introduction
1. 1 Setting the Scene
1.2 Theoretical Framework: Security Studies and Securitization Theory
1.3 Hypotheses and Research Methodology

2. Theoretical Part
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Historical Aspects
2.2.1 The evolution of Security Studies since the end of the Cold War
2.2.2 The evolution of CS
2.3 Securitization
2.4 Sectors of Security (Political, Military, Societal, Economic and Environmental)
2.4.1 The Military Sector
2.4.2 The Societal Sector
2.5 Facilitating Conditions for Securitization / external and internal aspects
2.6 Securitizing actor and Referent Object
2.6.1 Referent Object
2.6.2 Securitizing Actor
2.7 Regional Security Complexes
2.8 Further development of CS after Security: A new Framework for Analysis
2.8.1 Overview
2.8.2 Parenthesis: Colin Hay on Crisis as Construction of „Meta-Narratives”
2.8.3 Macro-securitizations and the Narrative behind the GWoT (Buzan & Wæver 2009)
2.9 Conclusion Theoretical Part

3. Analysis
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Securitizing what and how – the INP and methodological questions
3.3 Operationalizing Theory: Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA)
3.4 Hypotheses
3.4.1 H1: Netanyahu securitizes the INP alongside the coordinates of the GWoT
3.4.2 Operationalizing H1: Creating Category and Dimensions
3.4.3 H2: Netanyahu securitizes the INP as an existential threat to the Jewish people
3.4.4 Operationalizing H2: Creating Category and Dimensions
3.5 The Securitizing Actor: Benjamin Netanyahu
3.6 Case-selection: Speeches: GA 2009 and 2012, Congress 2011, American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
3.7 Analyzing H1: Netanyahu securitizes the INP alongside the coordinates of the GWoT
3.7.1 Overview
3.7.2 First part: Military Sector
3.7.2.1 Referent Object: Global Security
3.7.2.2 Threats to the referent object: WMD, International Terrorism
3.7.2.3 Iran as spreader of worldwide terrorism
3.7.2.4 Linguist, Semiotic, Figurative Dimension: Military Sector
3.7.3 Second Part: Societal Sector
3.7.3.1 Referent Object: Western Civilization
3.7.3.2 Threats to (Israel and) western civilization: Radical Islam endangers Western Way of Life, Freedom and (Scientific) progress
3.7.3.3 Iran as backward regime with medieval ideology vs. western world
3.7.3.4 Linguistic, semiotic, figurative dimension: societal sector
3.7.4 Summary H
3.8 Analyzing H2: Netanyahu securitizes the INP as an existential threat to the Jewish people
3.8.1 Overview
3.8.2 Referent Object: Jewish people (around the world)
3.8.3 Israel as ethnic nation, Netanyahu speaking on behalf of Israel as a nation
3.8.4 Remarks on the Holocaust
3.8.5 Iran as anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying regime
3.8.6 Linguistic, semiotic and figurative dimension
3.9 Summary H

4. Conclusion

5. Appendix
5.1 Example of an Extraction Table (Screenshot)
5.2 Text Corpus (in chronological order)
5.2.1 Speech at the GA of the UN in
5.2.2 Speech in front of the American Congress
5.2.3 Speech in front of AIPAC
5.2.4 Speech at the GA of the UN in

6. Bibliography
6.1 Books and Articles from Academic Journals
6.2. Newspaper Articles and Other Documentation

1. Introduction

1. 1 Setting the Scene

Security as a concept is and has always been “essentially contested” (Baldwin 1997, p.6). What does it mean to feel secure and when do we have this sentiment? Is security a sentiment? What guarantees comfort and feathered security for one person, might be a source of incalculable danger for the other. This bears even more truth once we start considering the security of larger groups, tribes, nations and eventually states and alliances. The French nuclear weapons are not regarded as a threat to German security by the German government whatsoever, yet, the German government treats the nuclear program of a country as far away from its shores as North Korea as a threat to international security and global stability (Der Spiegel 2013).

In 2006 the then opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu stated in an interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz when asked about the Iranian nuclear program (INP)^[1]: “It's 1938 and Iran is Germany” and “Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust” (Hirschberg 2006). For years the world has witnessed a seemingly never-ending struggle and haggle about how to deal with the fact that Iran apparently works on enriching uranium on a scale that could in the end possibly empower it to construct the deadliest Weapon of Mass destruction (WMD), an atomic bomb.

Tensions have risen higher and lower during the last years of open diplomatic and covert military actions that were aimed at stopping the Iranian government from carrying out its plan to enrich uranium. The Israeli government tries to convince the international community of the danger of the INB for the security of the whole world.

This B.A-Thesis analyzes four speeches by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he tries to securitize the INP. The theory underpinning the analysis will be securitization theory. The different aspects of securitization theory outlined in the theoretical part are translated into hypotheses which are eventually examined in the analytical part. The analysis will be a textual analysis and carried out by the means of extraction of relevant theory-based information from the text.

1.2 Theoretical Framework: Security Studies and Securitization Theory

In the 1990s the field of International Relations (IR) witnessed the rise of constructivism as a new paradigm for analyzing processes in the international system. Challenging both ontological and epistemological preconditions and rationales of former established IR-theory^[2], constructivists questioned not only the objective existence of social structures (perceiving social structures as being under continuous construction) but also asked if, even if there were such objectively existing structures, we could gain any objective knowledge about them^[3].

Against the backdrop of the emergence of constructivism within IR, a new light was also shed on the idea of security. Most of the time during the Cold War security in the international system was linked to the idea of military security, thus security studies, traditionally a sub-field of IR, stayed overwhelmingly concerned with issues about arms races, nuclear weapons and the balance of power. It was the tectonic geopolitical shifts that occurred between 1989 and 1993 leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the implosion of the Warsaw Pact which eventually gave rise to a widening and deepening of the former narrow (military) agenda (Wæver 2005). Researchers started to include a new range of threats into their security framework, creating concepts of non-military security. The scope of security was widened to e.g. economy, migration or drug cartels or even such things as the environment (e.g. Allenby 2000).

One of the approaches that emerged from this new thinking of security in the 1990s, the securitization theory of the Copenhagen School (CS), will set the theoretical context for my analysis. Securitization theory sees security as something being constructed as and propelled by speech acts within a framework of sectors of security. Once a relevant person (be it a government actor or an opposition leader) claims something to be a security issue or an existential threat it becomes one.

According to the main scholars behind securitization theory, Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, security can hence be ‘spoken’ and is an evolving process. The speech acts (or other relevant expressions by specific securitizing actors) are thereby not yet securitizations but rather securitizing attempts or moves. The five sectors of security in which the securitization attempt takes places range from the military to the environmental sector. In each sector exists a set of specific threats and vulnerabilities (Buzan et al. 1998). History, relevant components and development of CS and securitization theory will be presented thoroughly in the theoretical part.

1.3 Hypotheses and Research Methodology

Coming from the theoretical framework that securitization theory provides two hypotheses are derived from the securitizing moves of Benjamin Netanyahu. Firstly, the Israeli Prime Minister tries to securitize the INP alongside the coordinates of another securitized conflict, the Global War on Terrorism (GWoT) (First Hypothesis/H1). Secondly, Netanyahu securitizes the INP as a threat not only to Israel as a state but as an existential threat to the Jewish people (Second Hypothesis/H2).

The hypotheses are then examined by the means of Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA^[4]), particularly via extraction of relevant parts of the text. This extraction is theoretically underlined by the approach of Swiss scholars Jochen Gläser and Brit Laudel who developed a little Makro program which runs on Microsoft Word (Gläser, Laudel 1997). The program enables the researcher to carry out the extraction with an exact clustering and categorizing of relevant information. The categories are derived from the theoretical outset of securitization theory. Special emphasis is one the rhetorical structure of the speeches which reflect certain aspects of securitization theory. Especially with regard to the first hypothesis, the analytical part also reaches out to detect narratives being built around the securitizing of the INP and inasmuch those narratives link to other common narratives.

In the end, this bachelor thesis seeks to contribute a little to the understanding of the ‘contested concept’ security and to clarify whether and how securitizing actors (as in this thesis Benjamin Netanyahu) ‘speak security’ in order to set and exercise their agenda.

2. Theoretical Part

2.1. Introduction

In this theoretical part the essential components of CS´s theoretical framework are outlined. Focus will be on the concept of securitization and the concepts of sectors of security and regional security complexes wherever they add valuable aspects to the theory of securitization and thus to the later analysis. Main source will be the 1998-book Security: A new framework for analysis(Buzan et al. 1998) in which the parameters of the CS-approach towards security were delineated comprehensively for the first time. Having said this, further theoretical development of securitization theory will also be taken into account especially the considerations on the implications of macro-securitizations.

At the beginning, a short historical overview of the development of security studies in Europe since the Cold War and the evolution of CS within this environment is provided.

2.2 Historical Aspects

2.2.1 The evolution of Security Studies since the end of the Cold War

Most of the time during the Cold War security in the international system was linked to the idea of military security. This is why also the field of security studies, traditionally a sub-field of IR, was historically mainly concerned with issues about arms races, nuclear weapons and the balance of power. Nowadays these military-centered approaches towards security are usually called Traditionalist (Buzan 1997).

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union new security constellations occurred that also demanded for new approaches and even definitions for the concept of security. The ‘widening and deepening’ of the very idea of security resulted in the inclusion of a divers variety of topics into the framework of security studies (Peoples & Vaughan-Williams 2010). The scope of security was widened to include e.g. economy, migration, drug cartels or the environment (e.g. Allenby 2000)^[5].

Especially realist scholars of IR who traditionally have an explicit state-centric approach towards security with threats occurring almost exclusively as military threats (e.g. Walt 1991) anticipate a danger in the widening of the term ´security´ (“everything becomes security” (Wæver 2004)). This is a dissent that the Copenhagen School in turn took very serious in the process of developing its theoretical framework (Buzan 1997, Wæver 2004).

The widening of the term of security was accompanied and catalyzed by constructivist approaches and concepts applied within Security Studies, for example the idea of security as an ongoing process –securitization- and the resulting perception of social identities as being constructed. Especially the idea of security as a process, security-in-the-making so to speak, and the question of when and how something is called a security issue or a threat’ underpin basic thoughts of the concept of securitization (Buzan et al. 1998). (Social) constructivism had become one of the most influential theoretical inputs for security studies, as Michael Williams points out:

Over the past decade, the field of security has become one of the most dynamic and contested areas in International Relations. (…) broadly social constructivist approaches have challenged traditional – largely Realist and non-Realist theories on their ‘home turf’ (Williams 2003, p.511)

Within the context of new, more or less constructivist thinking on security we can identify three different schools in Europe that influenced constructivist, post-positivist thinking on security in Europe and beyond (whereby school is used as a label for elaborated theories or research programs): Aberystwyth School (sometimes also referred to as Welsh School or Critical Studies School), Paris School and CS^[6].

All of the three European post-Cold War security studies schools with a constructivist perspective are usually subsumed (together with other e.g. postmodernist / feminist approaches) under the label Critical Security Studies (CSS) (Peoples & Vaughan-Williams 2010). CS and securitization theory are the most influential and most received of the three security studies ‘schools’ with a constructivist, post-positivist approach. Its basic theoretical framework has been developed in the 1990s, primarily by Danish scholar Ole Wæver and British professor Barry Buzan.

2.2.2 The evolution of CS

The institute that hosted most of the academics involved in the development of CS was the 1985-established Center for Peace and Conflict Research (later Conflict and Peace Research Institute (COPRI)) in the Danish capital Copenhagen, hence the name Copenhagen school (Huysman, 1998). Its two main theoretical contributors are Ole Wæver and Barry Buzan. The whole framework of the Copenhagen School is still work in progress, it being a theory which has been constantly reviewed and revised by a considerable amount of academics and scholars out of the whole European field of Security Studies^[7]

What affected Buzan’s and Wæver’s joint thinking in the beginning of their collaboration was the question how the ever more widening concepts of international security could be kept comprehensive and coherent, thus also addressing the critique voiced by many realist thinkers on the widening of security studies (Huysman 1998).

Widening along the referent object axis—that is, saying that ‘security is not only military defense of the state, it is also x and y and z’ – has the unfortunate effect of expanding the security realm endlessly, until it encompasses the whole social and political agenda. This is not, however, just an unhappy coincidence or a temporary lack of clear thinking. The problem is that, as concepts, neither individual security nor international security exists. (Wæver 1995, p.40)

CS scholars intended to redefine the terminology of Security Studies by applying a new understanding of security, namely one of security as a process engineered by social events and the inner logic inherent in every individual security issue be it military or else^[8]. Examined in this manner, inner logics of a security discourse can then be applied to a widened area of sectors. The CS’ theoretical framework thus both answers to critics who fault the incoherence of a widened security concept and yet includes different ‘sectors of security’ outside the traditional military security nexus.

The three concepts most prominently linked to the works of the Copenhagen School are

- Securitization (Security as a process)
- Sectors of Security (Political, Military, Societal, Economic and Environmental)
- Regional Security Complexes

Some concepts such as securitization and security sectors have been introduced from outside into and then further developed by the Copenhagen School^[9].Nonetheless these three concepts or thematic axes have been widely recognized as CS´s main contribution to modern Security Studies theory development (Huysman 1998).

2.3 Securitization

Being probably the most received, contested and revised concept of the theoretical framework which CS developed securitization is in its core a theory about security as speech acts. Inspired by linguistics and social constructivism, it understands security not as something ‘given` or inherently pre-structured by the international system but rather as a process of ongoing labeling something as security and redefining by relevant actors on what `security` means. This process of defining something as and thus making it a security issue is initiated and propelled by speech acts. In 2003, Buzan and Wæver defined securitization as:

a successful speech act through which an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent object, and to enable a call for urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat (Buzan & Wæver, 2003 p. 491)

Already in his book People, States and Fear in which Buzan worked on sectors of security and regional security complexes he acknowledged and cited Wæver´s perception of security as a speech act:

Ole Wæver: One can view ´security` as that which is in language theory called a speech act: ….. it is the utterance itself that is the act … By saying `security` a state-representative moves the particular case into a specific area; claiming a special right to use the means necessary to block this development. (Buzan 1991, p. 17)

French philosopher Jaques Derrida had considerable influence on the development of Wæver´s thinking as well as linguistics theory by John Austin^[10]. Other theoretical influences reflect the diverse theoretical backgrounds^[11] of Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver and range from Kenneth Waltz to Carl Schmitt^[12].

Together with Barry Buzan and Dutch scholar Jaap de Wilde, Wæver further developed the concept of securitization describing the process of security as a speech act in their first joint book Security: A new framework for analysis:

It is not interesting as a sign referring to something more real; it is the utterance itself that is the act. By saying the words, something is done (like betting, giving a promise, naming a ship) (Buzan et al. 1998).

Even though the concept of securitization has been revised and developed (as will be pointed out in chapter 2.8 ) crucial features of the concept stay the same: The idea that security is not something real or given, but a process or a move that someone applies in order to bring a discussion beyond the realms of everyday politics and into a sphere where extraordinary, out-of-band measures ought to be deployed and “actions outside of the normal bounds of political procedure” (Buzan et al. 1998, p.24) are justified.

It is at this point important to distinguish the process of securitization from the process of politicization. According to Buzan et al., a public issue can be politicized once it is discussed in political debate and a politicized issue will subsequently require government decisions based (at least in democracies) on a careful consideration of possible odds reflecting logics and features of the individual political system. Again, a securitized issue is perceived as an issue that constitutes an existential threat to a certain entity be it the state or else and requires extraordinary and emergency measures(Buzan et al. 1998, pp. 23, 24). Within politicized issues there is a room for debate and the outcome of such debate is generally (or better, theoretically) open. A securitization on the other hand demands firm actions and does not offer much room for political choice because it is so urgent that it “should not be exposed to the normal haggling of politics but should be dealt with decisively by top leaders prior to other issues” (Buzan et al. 1998, p.29).

The term existential threat is of vital significance to the authors since it represents the crucial criterion for the analysis of a securitization which the authors suggest should be a textual analysis (ibid.). Labeling a threat existential implies not only extra ordinary measures outside of legal boundaries as a coercive necessity but it also provides a moral or ontological justification for ‘emergency measures’: If the enemy is not stopped or the threat not contained the most precious feature of a state/ society / habitat/ is at stake: it´s very existence and survival.

A securitization must be intersubjective and accompanied by “a saliency sufficient to have substantial political effects” (Buzan et al., 1998 p.25). This remark constitutes a ponderous constraint for every analysis of securitization processes: Even though it is quite clear what a securitization is, not everyone could perform it and as long as it is not successful i.e. has measurable political effect Buzan et al. do not refer to it as a securitization but only as one or many securitizing moves. Such securitizing moves are speech acts performed towards an audience by the securitizing actor seeking to convince it of the existential character of a threat towards a referent object; and the emergency measures that should be exerted in order to contain or eliminate the existential threat .

It is at the same time not of interest whether a certain issue really poses a threat to a certain referential object or not; rather, an analysis of securitizing moves should focus on the rhetorical construction of such threats by the securitizing actor.

In a situation with recurring or enduring threats to a certain referent object, the securitization can become institutionalized. If a state, for instance, sustains a standing army (which most countries in fact do) or relies on the services of its secret agencies, perceptions of what security is and how it can be asserted do not arise: No one would argue the necessity of these security measures because of the perceived necessity for maintaining standing armies in order to sustain state security. Another example for an institutionalized securitization are the dikes preventing large parts of the Netherlands from being flooded which are a commonly agreed upon feature of the Dutch security (Buzan et al. 1998, p.28).

Buzan et al. developed also a framework of different sectors of security in which the securitizing actors perform their securitizing moves.

2.4 Sectors of Security (Political, Military, Societal, Economic and Environmental)

Prior to the concept of sectors of security questions had arisen on how to introduce non-military threats into security studies and open the field to a variety of new units (for instance individuals, groups, mankind and not only states as political entities) without widening the subject too far and equalizing the question of security with the question of social order in general (Huysman 1998).

Buzan introduced a first and simplified concept of sectors of security already in his book People, states and fear in which he introduced the logics of vulnerability and threats which differ greatly depending on the sector of security addressed (Buzan 1991).

Threats can exist for one state with a specific fear and vulnerability in one sector which are completely negligible for others. Vulnerabilities and fear can be felt by states or governments because of the special composition of the geography of a country (e.g. islands, mountains as natural bulwarks against penetrators or the lack of them). Other states with strong ethnic minorities might feel more vulnerable in the societal sector where questions of collective identity are at stake. Some could also be threatened by climate change or air pollution, creating a security threat out of the environmental sector (Buzan 1991).

In Security: A new framework for Analysis the concepts of the five sectors have evolved and amalgamated with the securitization framework. Each sector now “refers to a specific security dynamic rather than to a collection of particular threats” (Huysman 1998, p.489, emphasis added by the author). In each sector exist also specific securitizing actors(e.g. governments) acting in the name of specific referent objects(states, identity, endangered species) defining an emerging security problem.

Since two of the five sectors conceptualized more in-depth in Security: A new frameworks for analysis, namely the military and the societal one, are of considerable importance for the analytical part they will be examine further. The other three sectors deal with referent objects out of the economic, political and environmental sector such as political sovereignty, economic independence or the survival of habitats (Buzan et al. 1998). These sectors are relevant for securitization theory in general but negligible for the analysis thus they will not be examined in greater detail. Important within all the sectors though is the identification of the objects of analysis. Parallel to questions like “whose security? What security? For whom?” referent object, securitizing actor, types of threats and vulnerabilities can be identified in each sector.

2.4.1 The Military Sector

Due to historical reasons, the military sector is a sector where securitization is usually highly institutionalized and securitizing moves are mostly linked to the government or other agents acting on behalf of the nation state. One of the founding principles of every sovereign state is territory and territorial integrity. From that follows that questions of securitization in the military sector are likely to incorporate territorial threats or military threats to the sovereignty of a state (Buzan et al 1998,p.49).

Since the establishment of the Westphalian state order and the evolution of the modern nation state, first in the western world and then “exported” to the rest of the world, the state views itself as the only legitimate wielder of power inside the boundaries of its territory. Therefore the referent object of a securitization attempt will be in a lot of cases the territorial integrity or sovereignty of a state. But there exist also non-state or ‘would-be states’ actors such as tribes, gangs or warlords who often securitize issues in their own fashion. Sometimes also religion can be seen as a referent object at stake and threatened militarily in states where religion is part of the core constitution of the sovereignty of the state as is the case in Israel and Iran. Another referent object that could possibly become securitized in the military sector especially with regards to WMD is the security of the international system. Securitizing actors in the military sector are mostly actors speaking on behalf of their state e.g. government representatives. Yet, on the sub-state level technically everyone able to wield power over a certain territory can become a potential securitizing actor. On the supranational level on the other hand actors speaking on behalf of international organizations (such as the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN)) could securitize Universal Human Rights in the military sector with mankind as referential object (Buzan et al. 1998).

The military sector will always “reflect the structure of power relations” (Buzan et al. 1998, p.56) more than other sectors with a more legitimate claim of national governments to fulfill their (perceived) duties for the security of their country.

According to the authors, in the case of the military sector it is not only the size and firepower of military equipment or capabilities that determines the construction of threats and securitization processes but also, as aforementioned, factors like geography and history come into play: Countries like Poland are very flat and have no natural obstacles to potential invaders, small-size countries (e.g. Israel, Singapore) have no strategic depth and so on and so forth. Those natural preconditions lead to a securitization in the military sector that adjusts the military force of a state in order to meet the demands of the individual country. This is for example reflected in Israel maintaining one of the most capable air forces in the world both in size and equipment which able to strike potential enemies long before they can reach the country´s territory (Pfeffer 2013).

2.4.2 The Societal Sector

In this broad sector, referent objects and possible threats are constructed alongside the lines of identity. It is the collective identity of a certain group of people that eventually forms and maintains the inner structure of tribes, clans and in a wider sense nations, and also distinguishes them from other groups.

In Security: A new framework for analysis Buzan et al. use the term nation^[13] as referent object in the societal sector thus demarcating it from the state which mainly served as referent object in the military sector. The authors place value on the fact that the “state and society of the same people are two different things” (Buzan et al. 1998 p.119) and when they are referent object for security, they generate two different logics. Securitization processes aimed at the state level (e.g. following military logics) and at the nation or society level^[14] (following the logics of a specific collective identity) will vary greatly in the detection and construction of threats because the meet different layers of vulnerability.

Societal security is arranged around the idea of self-sustaining groups which seek to protect their collective identity against perceived intruders and subversive actions targeting their ‘we identity’. In Europe nations are more or less synonymous with the state due to historic reasons. Accordingly, state actors try to speak in the name of not only their state but also their nation. This is because of the perceived correspondence between nation and state in the respective countries. In other parts of the world societal will not refer to the nation as in Europe but to a religious or even ethnic collectivity which can be threatened ‘as to its identity’. Especially in collectivities with a strong religious identity securitizing actors tend to be “official or semiofficial – often contested- leaders who claim to be able to speak on behalf of the religious community.” (Buzan et al. 1998, p.124)

Threats and vulnerabilities within the societal sector differ widely and are always subject to the individual conditions of a certain community or nation in a unique environment and neighborhood. Buzan et al. argue that three types of threats are ubiquitous and occur in one way or another in most cases where societal issues are securitized: 1.) Migration perceived as threat, 2.) horizontal and 3.) vertical competition.

1.) Migration has always been a threat to genuine identities throughout time and space especially during migration periods when the percentage of member of certain societal entities inside a given territory change quite rapidly. Nowadays issues being securitized in relation to migration are e.g. transnational crime and diseases transmitted by immigrants (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 121)^[15].

2.) Horizontal competition or threats occur where people are afraid of the overwhelming cultural or linguistic influence of another culture which threatens the continuance of their own identity. Perceived horizontal threats happen to confront established cultural patterns on every level: Small countries are afraid of the cultural influence of big countries, countries like France are afraid of losing their language and take special measures to protect it. On a more global level, processes like the ‘Americanization of the world’ can be securitized or the differences between the dominant religions and regions of the planet can get into the focus of securitization^[16].

Barry Buzan pointed already in People, states and fear to the complex relations between different cultures, especially with regard to the fears that Westernization invokes in some parts of the world

At lower levels of intensity, even the interplay of ideas and communication can produce politically significant societal and cultural threats, as illustrated by the reaction of Islamic fundamentalists to the penetration of Western ideas (Buzan 1991, pp. 122,123)

3.) Last but not least, a vertical competition occurs wherever a former state or state-like entity dissolves either because it gets incorporated into a bigger state or nation (e.g. the EU) or because centrifugal powers force the country to parcel out into smaller countries based on different collective identities (as happened in the former Yugoslavia).

2.5 Facilitating Conditions for Securitization / external and internal aspects

Based on the theoretical assumption that agreed upon or even objective standards about how to measure an actual security threat do not exist and can never exist, all security arguments brought up by securitizing actors within the framework of securitization are in fact predictions about the future (Buzan et al. 1998, p.32). The securitizing actor usually tries to project a dark picture of future developments in order to get legitimization for out-of-order means.

Once an actor started a securitizing move, usually a speech act in one way or the other (e.g. a public speech or a TV-interview) certain conditions determine or facilitate the move and enable it to get transformed into a potentially successful securitization.

Internal and external aspects have to be acknowledged in order for a speech act to be potentially successful. All the features of these conditions are based on John Austin´s work on speech act theory (Austin 1975 [1962]).

The internal conditions are linguistic or grammatical and follow the rules of the act meaning that the act has to meet some prerequisites of common talk conventions and give credit to accepted rules about a certain topic. Translated into the language of security, some terms such as existential threat or ‘point of no return’ (with the possible solution at hand) should be invoked. Additionally each sector of security calls for different codes and sets of language to be considered (such as emphasizing identity in the societal sector or stable markets in the economic).

The external aspects of ‘talking security’ focus on the social context in which a certain speech act is made. It is deducted from the social context, for example the authority that an actor has within a certain social group. The role of authority is essential; hence, analyses of securitization fixate their attention on the speeches delivered by people with authority. That does not mean, however, that their authority has to be ‘official’ in the sense of officially representing a state or nation (Buzan et al.1998, p.32).

The kind of recognition or acceptance of a threat brought up in the securitizing move is of significance as well. A nuclear bomb or cruise missiles have a higher chance to get the attention of an audience and the legitimization for extraordinary measures afterwards. WMD are generally perceived to be threatening (because institutionalized or macro-securitizations on these weapons have been successful, see section 2.6.1.). Their mere existence is nevertheless not sufficient in itself for a securitization. It is the securitizing actor calling them threatening who propels them into the arena of security and thereby sets the process of securitization in motion.

2.6 Securitizing actor and Referent Object

2.6.1 Referent Object

“Things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to survival (Buzan et al. 1998 p.36)” is the official definition of a referent object within securitization theory.

Admittedly, applying this definition, a lot of things from all different kinds of human interactions principally meet the criteria of the definition. In the environmental sector, for example, the survival of ecosystems or habitats can be securitized. Whether the securitization of certain referent objects is successful depends on their site and scale. Ranging from micro- (of the individual) to macro-securitization (of the international system) the spectrum is seemingly limitless. Success have usually referent objects located somewhere in the “middle scale of limited collectivities” (Buzan et al.1998, p. 36) meaning states, nations or civilizations^[17].

System level securitizations appear to be more difficult since the international system does not have a collective identity. One macro-securitization that was successful was the fear of numerous people around the globe during the time of bloc confrontation when ‘nuclear annihilation’ was the course of worldwide trepidation. On the case of macro-securitizations see section 2.8.3 where I examine the further development of CS and securitization theory following the publication of Security: A new framework for analysis.

2.6.2 Securitizing Actor

“A securitizing actor is someone, or a group, who performs the security speech act (Buzan et al., 1998 p.40). Most commonly, the securitizing actor will be someone speaking on behalf of a government, corporation. Yet that doesn’t mean that the actor himself or the institutions they are speaking in behalf of are the referent objects of the securitizing moves. Rather, the actors will speak in the name of a national identity, state sovereignty and so on and so forth which is the actual referent object.

Identifying the relevant actors can become problematic: if we start looking at the very individuals performing the speech act, it is sometimes not easy to say whether they speak for or as their state, nation etc. Buzan et al. suggest letting the actor himself do the job of identifying his or her role ( Buzan et al. 1998, p.41 ) . The answer to the question of the actor is then embedded in the logic at the heart of the action:

Is it an action according to individual logic or organizational logic, and is the individual or the organization generally held responsible by other actors. Focusing on the organizational logic of the speech act is probably the best way to identify who or what is the securitizing actor. (Buzan et al. 1998, p.41)

In the case of a state the securitizing actor can be a state official or government representative because it is widely acknowledged that a state has certain actors speaking on behalf of him, the securitizing actors are the state. It is more problematic to pinpoint the referent object on whose behalf an actor is performing in the societal sector. This is to say whether he or she is speaking on behalf of a nation or a collective identity as there is a danger of blurring securitizing actor and referent object in the societal sector:

When we say (…) that societal security is often about nations and their survival, we do not want to say that “a nation acts to defend itself,” which would represent reifying and anthropomorphic terminology. Someone – some group, movement, party, or elite – acts with reference to the nation and claims to speak or act on behalf of the nation. (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 41)

It is not ‘the nation speaking’ if a securitizing actor speaks on behalf of the nation as contrasted with an actor on a state level who is acknowledged as an actor legitimate when ‘speaking security’ as the state.

2.7 Regional Security Complexes

In order to properly analyze a security constellation the relevant actors have to be chosen carefully and are not necessarily found only on the side of the government apparatus but also on the grass roots level; furthermore, additional attention has to be paid on the dynamics and developments on the regional level. During her theoretical evolution, the group of scholars around Barry Buzan gradually favored more and more structure-based over actor-based approaches arguing that an actor-oriented approach

(..) tends to fragment the security dynamic into individualized practices and perspectives. The structural dimension of the dynamic disappears under a multitude of individualized practices and perspectives. (Huysman, 1998, p.495)

The idea of security complexes has originally been introduced by Barry Buzan and assumes that regions share a common security dynamic which eventually forms a new pattern of regional security.

All the states in the system are to some extent enmeshed in a global web of security interdependence. But because insecurity is often associated with proximity, this interdependence is far from uniform. Anarchy plus geographical diversity yields a pattern of regionally based clusters, within which security interdependence is markedly more intense between the states inside such complexes, than it is between states inside such complexes, than it is between states inside the complex and those outside it. (Buzan & Wæver, 2003, p.46)

In Security: A new Framework for analysis the authors outline how regional security complexes can be producing very different dynamics and perceived threats and vulnerabilities which can arise in every specific sector of security. If we look for example at the Middle East as a security complex we can recognize different patterns of rivalry constructed in different sectors of security: Iran and Saudi Arabia divide on the Shia-Sunni axis within the societal sector. Israel is both a state and a nation and feels threatened by most of its neighbors (Buzan et al. 1998). But in the Middle East , despite ongoing and recurring internal conflict there is also

…A high degree of identification with a mostly religiously, (…) defined defense against Western dominance, cultural imperialism, and the imposition Western standards of international society (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 133)

The US constitutes another part of the Middle East regional security complex even though it obviously lacks any spatial proximity with the region: It is not only the military presence of the US-forces in many of the countries of the Middle East but also its alliance with the state of Israel which is by both governments described as “eternal alliance” (Sheerwood 2013) stress the importance that the US adheres to the region. Given the nature and tremendous extent of military and cultural exchange between Israel and the US one could even see the two countries as on security complex for itself. Section 3.6 which explains the case selection will come back on this point.

2.8 Further development of CS after Security: A new Framework for Analysis

2.8.1 Overview

Since Security: A new Framework for Analysis, securitization theory has further developed. Authors such as Matt McDonald focus on the alleged narrowness of the speech act concerning its actors, context and nature. McDonald recommends including more lower-ranking actors, paying more attention to the environment in which the speech act is made and suggests the addition of normative elements (McDonald 2008). Others formulated that the speech act alone underestimates the significance of images, videos and other supportive material to securitization. Lene Hansen argues in an article about visual securitization that the importance of images is only rising due to new technological developments (Hansen 2011). She suggests studying the images produced in the process and not just the mere speech act itself: “To study visual securitization is therefore to engage the processes through which images come to have political implications” (Hansen 2011, p. 53). In an analysis of the successful macro-securitization of the Cold War, Juha A. Vuori examines the role of the ‘Doomsday Clock’ as an allegoric picture in securitizing the existence of nuclear weapons generating widespread fear of ‘nuclear annihilation’ (Vuori 2010).

The two main authors of a further evolving securitization theory, Buzan and Wæver, began especially after the attacks of 9/11 and the events that followed to take off from the national or regional level as referent objects and examined instead the possibilities of macro-securitizations with world or global security as a referent object for securitizing moves more in-depth.

In an essay from 2009 Buzan and Wæver formulate the possibilities of macro-securitizations with the example of the GWoT. The GWoT is perceived as an US-led macro-securitization with global security and stability as referent objects (Buzan & Wæver 2009). The GWoT might also be more likely to replace the grand narrative and the successful securitization of the Cold War for whom the US, as Buzan suggests in a paper from 2006, were desperately trying to find a replacement during the 1990s (Buzan 2006):

(..) the explicit 'long war' framing of the GWoT is a securitizing move of potentially great significance. If it succeeds as a widely accepted, world-organizing macro-securitization, it could structure global security for some decades, in the process helping to legitimize US primacy (Buzan 2006 p.1102)

This macro-securitization attempt can be successful after all and trigger a possibly decade-long securitization due to the fact that other states such as China, Russia, India and Israel jumped on the bandwagon of the proclaimed GWoT because it served their own national interest well. These countries declared their fight against domestic perceived terror groups to be a part of the GWoT thus hoping to enhance the legitimacy of their actions (Buzan 2006). Section 2.8.3 will come back to the topic of the macro-securitization of the GWoT and the narrative behind it.

Concerns about international terrorism and its underpinning ideology, radical Islam are closely tied to concerns about the proliferation of WMD as Buzan postulates citing a fragment of a 2002-speech delivered by the then American president G.W. Bush on the new concepts of the US´s security strategy:

The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed ... History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action. (Buzan 2006, p. 1105)

And indeed the link between radical ideology and WMD seems to be a common theme in securitizing the GWoT. It has proven successful given the widespread recognition among Western states that the marriage of radical ideology and WMD is one of the greatest concerns for contemporary mankind. The idea that there is a possibly dangerous crossroad between radical Islam and WMD is a narrative which evolves as a process. In order to analyze narratives thoroughly in the analytical part the construction of such narratives in general will be examined in a sort of parenthesis. The British scholar Colin Hay wrote about the construction of narratives in the context of the events surrounding the ’Winter of Discontent^[18] ’.

2.8.2 Parenthesis: Colin Hay on Crisis as Construction of „Meta-Narratives”

In a 1996-essay, British scholar Colin Hay examines the logic of the unfolding of political crises which he defines as dynamic processes rather than static or unmovable phenomena using the example of the ‘Winter of Discontent.

According to his view, crises are the cumulative outcome of singular events which are eventually subsumed under an overarching ‘meta-narrative’, in his case the alleged incompetence of the then Labor government to solve specific incidents:

The discursive construction of crisis can thus be seen as a process involving the mapping together of a great variety of disparate events unified through the identification of some common sense – the overextension of the state, the holding of ransom of the country by the unions, the tyranny of the pickets, and so forth (Hay 1996, p.266)

Accumulated, those specific events give rise to a then gradually evolving meta-narrative, thus artificially subsuming former genuine cases into one great ’mythology’:

The specificity and complexity of each event is thus denied, as an abstracted and simplified meta-narrative capable of accounting for every `symptom`, and capable of unambiguously attributing responsibility, is offered in its place. (Hay 1996, p. 267)

After the creation of such an overlying narrative, each phenomenon occurring later on, even though it might only be loosely related can be incorporated in the then existing processes:

By importing such simplified and simplifying abstractions, a multitude of disparate events can be recruited as `symptoms` within the discourse of crisis. The crisis diagnosis is confirmed in each new ‘symptom’ which can be assimilated within this meta-narrative (Hay 1996, p.267, 268).

Transferred into the system of security and applying the concept of securitization we can identify such narratives underpinning macro-securitizations. The GWoT with its narrative of the antagonism between the Western world and radical Islam serves as a case in point. Additionally, such narratives are ‘open’ meaning that as they consist of several smaller pieces and stories which make up the eventual meta-narrative, new fragments can also be adhered to them.

2.8.3 Macro-securitizations and the Narrative behind the GWoT (Buzan & Wæver 2009)

Principally, macro-securitizations work with the same pre-assumptions and dynamics as “normal securitizations”. Securitizing actors are needed for the performance of the speech acts as well as respective audiences. And yet, macro-securitizations work a little differently:

In addition they (macro-securitizations, Author’s note (A.N.)) require some expansive dynamic capable of subsuming other securitizations. Only if they acquire a supportive audience on an appropriate scale and a possibility to operate as the interpretive framework for other securitizations do they have the possibility of becoming more than niche securitizations (Buzan & Wæver, 2009, p.265)

Similarly to Hay´s perception of crises as dynamic processes enhanced by former not necessarily connected singular events, also Buzan and Wæver refer to macro-securitizations as processes that require an already existing narrative to which the securitization can adhere to:

(It requires... A.N.) the power of larger ‘master signifiers’, especially of symbolic short hands that trigger vivid imagery and built-in narratives that do not have to be unfolded, as with the power of the term ‘terrorism’. Within securitization theory this links to the concept of ‘institutionalized securitization’. (Buzan & Wæver, 2009, p.267, my italics)

This is particularly obvious in the case of terrorism and the GWoT where the securitization partly consists of a shared acknowledgment on the perceived danger of terrorism. This acknowledgment is then linked to other issues creating synergies towards the evolving macro-securitization of the GWoT:

Terrorism often functions today in this manner, where it is widely accepted that terrorism is a major security issue, so by linking any specific issue (uncontrolled financial flows, religious radicalization) to terrorism, they become immediately security issues. In addition to the horizontal linking among issues, a vertical move to more grandiose securitizations strengthens these securitizations by adding universality (Buzan & Wæver, 2009, p. 267)

Accordingly, a shared set of perceptions and values is necessary in the process of generating macro-securitizations. In addition to the shared values it is of some importance for the different actors to come to an agreement what threatens them as a collectivity. This is strikingly apparent when it comes to international terrorism and the GWoT which is underpinned by a constructed framework of identities on a variety of levels especially on the level of ‘civilizations’:

By contrast, ‘GWoT’ is the label for the US-led Macro-securitization, and Al-Qaeda securitizes in terms of a defense of Islam. Notable by its complete absence is any label for the whole constellation except for Huntington’s not entirely appropriate ‘clash of civilizations’. (Buzan & Wæver 2009, p.269)

Macro-securitizations and the narrative behind the GWoT play an important role for the development of my hypotheses.

2.9 Conclusion Theoretical Part

Securitization theory was developed with the goal to widen the security studies agenda without blurring the very concept of security to unrecognizability. Its concept of security is that of an evolving process that is propelled and enhanced by speech acts brought forward towards a certain audience. Important is hereby the identification of an existential threat. Securitizations take place in different sectors of security which comprise different sets of threats and vulnerabilities.

Each securitization is brought forward by one or more securitizing actors who claim a certain referent object to be existentially threatened. Facilitating conditions can foster the speech act and thus the securitizing moves: Aspect such as the language and tone of the speech act are important as well as the constitution of the audience. Macro-securitizations are securitizations that work on more than one sector, during a long period of time and with referent objects on the global or at least civilizational level. Behind macro-securitizations stands usually a narrative which tries to subsume different aspects and interests under one label in order to enhance the chances of success of a securitizing move. A securitization is considered to be successful once the referent object is generally received as existentially threatened and extraordinary measures to protect it are widely accepted.

3. Analysis

3.1 Introduction

In this analytical part the theory presented in the theoretical part is translated into tangible hypotheses which are subsequently examined. First of all, basic pre-considerations on method and intersubjectivity are outlined. Hereafter, research method and tools for the analysis which is based on a model of QCA developed by Jochen Gläser and Brit Laudel (Gläser, Laudel 1997) are introduced. Following the introduction of the research methodology two hypotheses are developed. H1 claims that the securitizing actor Benjamin Netanyahu securitizes the INP alongside the coordinates of the GWoT while H2 postulates that Netanyahu securitizes the program as a threat to the Jewish people. After an explanation of the selection of Benjamin Netanyahu as securitizing actor and an explanation of the case-selection, four speeches delivered by Benjamin Netanyahu will be analyzed by the means of the research methodology outlined in section 3.3.

3.2 Securitizing the INP - methodological questions

Analyzing the INP through the lens of securitization theory requires some basic considerations about analytical methods and intersubjectivity. Buzan et al. define analyzing securitization processes as follows:

The way to study securitization is to study discourse and political constellations: When does an argument with this particular rhetorical and semiotic structure achieve sufficient effect to make an audience tolerate violations of rules that would otherwise have to be obeyed? (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 25)

In order to analyze the logic and narratives behind the securitizing moves on the INP, I will examine four speeches by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whom I have selected as the securitizing actor (the reasons for this selection will be laid out in section 3.5). I claim in my hypotheses that the Israeli prime minister tries to prevail upon the international community and in particular the US to take up steps against the Iranian state. Such steps are especially extraordinary measures such as economic sanctions and possibly even military strikes if the enrichment of uranium in Iran is not halted

The analysis is supposed to show that the INP is securitized on different levels, from regional to international, and with different referent objects within specific sectors of security. Taking into account the in section 2.8.1 mentioned criticism of the narrow definition of the securitizing act as a mere speech act, visual and linguistic means that underpin the speech act will be subject of analysis as well.

At this point it is important to note that it is not of interest for the analysis of the securitization whether the Iranian nuclear poses a ‘real threat’ to the Israeli people or world security. Following the theoretical framework of securitization presented in Security: A new Framework for analysis and outlined in section 2.3, studying securitization means studying the inner logic of the speech act or as the authors write:

For the analyst to grasp this act the task is not to assess some objective threats that “really” endanger some object to be defended or secured; rather, it is to understand the processes of constructing a shared understanding of what is to be considered or collectively responded to as threat (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 26)

It is of importance though that an intersubjective understanding about the nature of the referent object exists otherwise the securitizing move fails:

Securitization is intersubjective and socially constructed: Does a referent object hold general legitimacy as something that should survive, which entails that actors can make reference to it, point to something as a threat, and thereby get others to follow or at least tolerate actions not otherwise legitimate? (Buzan et al. 1998, p.31)

3.3 Operationalizing Theory: Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA)

In order to analyze the four speeches to be examined, a QCA methodology developed by Swiss scholars Jochen Gläser and Grit Laudel (Gläser & Laudel 1997) is applied. It sets about to analyze empirical material using a method of theory-deducted extraction of the text, as in the case of this analysis four speeches by Benjamin Netanyahu. Theoretical considerations and aspects outlined in the theoretical part will be translated into categories and dimensions which influence or compose components of the underpinning theory of securitization. Before the specific hypotheses are developed in section 3.4 the methodology of QCA will be explained in more detail.

Whoever sets about analyzing a sample of research material of empirical significance to a theoretical framework, be it staples of interviews or as in the case of this analysis a handful of transcriptions of speeches, has to meet certain scientific criteria. Without going into too much detail of the current debate within social sciences, it should be noted that it centers around the three central questions of whether, how and when to apply either quantitative or qualitative methodology best.

As Gläser and Laudel explain in an essay arguing in favor of their method of a QCA, quantitative and qualitative methodology basically rests on two main approaches of empirical research: While quantitative models of examination deduct and verify or falsify hypotheses with a nomothetic deductive paradigm and static variables that have specific characteristics, qualitative analysis interprets the empirical material and constructs theories based on the interpretation (interpretative paradigm). Yet, Gläser and Laudel go one step further and claim that this exclusive combination of methods and theory production falls too short and in reality both approaches intertwine quite often. They advocate thus for a theory-deducted and yet qualitative model of content analysis to verify or falsify hypotheses (Gläser & Laudel 1999).

Gläser and Laudel’s approach, QCA with extraction hence meets two contrasting principles or demands of theory-deducted qualitative research:

The principle of openness demands that a qualitative examination has to be structured by the object of study, meaning by the information incorporated in the empirical material (…). The demand for a theory-driven approach stresses the necessity to tie in to existing theoretical knowledge about the object of study, as only in this way will there be a contribution to this knowledge (…) The qualitative content analysis raises the claim that it enables a synthesis of both principles (Gläser & Laudel 1999, p. 3, my translation)

In fact, QCA analyzes text via extracting information using a systematic method. The text is being searched for relevant information applying a prior constructed raster or grid of analysis. Whether certain information is relevant or not is determined by preliminary theoretical considerations, as in the present case the framework of securitization theory. The resulting extracted information is then further processed and categorized independent of the text itself, meaning it can be transformed or synthesized with other information (Gläser & Laudel, 1999).

The technical framework for a QCA as proposed by Gläser and Laudel is a small Makro-program written by the two scholars themselves that is being integrated in Microsoft Word and enables the researcher to categorize and allocate information within the Word format. Theoretical considerations for each sector of securitization theory, e.g. the military sector, translate into a specific dimension within prior createdcategories. The translation of theory into the system of categories will be outlined in the next section.

By applying the QCA of Gläser and Laudel approach theory-based hypotheses can deducted and examined. Yet, if the analysis shows that the empirical material deviates from the preliminary consideration the categories and dimensions can be adjusted during the analysis..

3.4 Hypotheses

3.4.1 H1: Netanyahu securitizes the INP alongside the coordinates of the GWoT

H1 examines whether and if yes how Netanyahu links the INP to the GWoT. A macro-securitization such as the GWoT is identical with ‘normal securitizations’ on a technical level (there are referent object, securitizing actors etc...) but additionally it combines and subsumes several sectors of security and works on various levels thus contributing to the enhancement and perpetration of a ‘greater narrative’.

In this aspect, the framework of the macro-securitization resembles Colin Hay´s remarks on the meta-narratives of crises which are eventually the outcome of numerous ‘small stories’ inherently not necessarily related with each other, yet all contributing to the narrative (Hay 1999).

The GWoT is described by Buzan and Wæver as an example for a successful securitization that works on different spatial and sectoral levels and layers. It is also enduring or institutionalized (Buzan & Wæver 2009). The construction of threats and vulnerabilities comes along several sectors of security. In the military sector, the referent object is somewhere between system and global level and securitizing actors try to construct threats to the stability and security of the global system or the world. Special focus is also on the proliferation of WMD. International terrorism carried out with an Islamic ideological background is seen as an anonymous and enduring threat (with groups like Al-Qaida being concrete threats) inside the military sector. However, within the GWoT there is also a strong emphasis on the societal sector where a perceived (western) civilization is at stake and threatened by its apparent or alleged antithesis: radical Islam which is depicted as being anti-modernist, backward or medieval.

[...]

---

^[1] In order to increase readability I chose to abbreviate the term Iranian nuclear program. However, INP is not an official abbreviation. For other abbreviations I used the following procedure: I once spell the term full and introduce the abbreviation afterwards.

^[2] Most famously Alexander Wendt in his articles Anarchy is what states make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics(Wendt 1992) and Constructing International Politics(Wendt 1995).

^[3] For an overview of the debate between positivists and post-positivists which came to full terms already in the 1980s see Josef Lapid: The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post- Positivist Era(Lapid 1989).

^[4] The term QCA should not be confused with Qualitative Comparative Analysis to which it usually refers to. I created the abbreviation solely for this thesis.

^[5] Interestingly the widening of security occurred more in Europe than in the US and the influence of constructivism is felt much stronger among European scholars (Wæver, 2004). For more information on this

issue see also Jan Huysman: Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, on the creative development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe(Huysman 1998).

^[6] For more information on the three different European schools that work on CSS see Wæver: Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen. New `Schools` in Security Theory and their Origins between Core and Periphery(Wæver 2004).

^[7] For more information on history and development of CS see e.g. Huysman 1998, Williams 2003, Stritzel 2007.

^[8] Scholars have also here empathized on the ‘Europeaness’ of CS (Wæver 2005, Huysman 1998). For more information on this issue see especially Jef Huysman: Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, on the creative development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe(Huysman 1998).

^[9] Ole Wæver developed the idea of securitization mostly independently; see for example Wæver: Securitization and De-securitization in: Lipschutz, On Security(Wæver 1995). Barry Buzan worked on sectors of security already since the 1980s, for more information on his earlier work see exemplarily Barry Buzan: People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations(Buzan 1991).

^[10] See on Wæver ´s theoretical involvement with Jaques Derrida and John Austin Holger Stritzel: Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond(Stritzel 2007).

^[11] See for further information about the diverse theoretical backgrounds underpinning securitization theory Rita Taureck: Securitisation theory – The Story so far: Theoretical inheritance and what it means to be a post-structural realist(Taureck 2006).

^[12] See Michael Williams who devoted a good part of his 2003-article Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics(Williams 2003) on the influence of Carl Schmitt´s theoretical thinking for securitization theory.

^[13] Nation in the sense of the authors means “ethno racial-type nation (Germanic) or to more state-related,

civic nations, which some prefer to call societies (Wæver et al., 1998, p.139)”.

^[14] Society is here referred to in the sense of the German word “Gemeinschaft” (which translates more to the English word “community” (Buzan et al. p. 139).

^[15] For a comprehensive overview of securitization and migration see Philippe Bourbeau: The Securitization of Migration: A Study of Movement and Order (Security and Governance)(Bourbeau 2011).

^[16] Buzan et al. explicitly mention Samuel Huntington´s ‚clash of civilizations’ (Huntington 1993, 1996) at this point (Buzan et al. 1998, pp. 125,126).

^[17] Civilization is here understood in the sense of Huntington´s ‘clash of civilizations’.

^[18] Winter of discontent refers to the events surrounding the public unrest in the UK in the winter 1978/1979 following a wide-spread strike of public trade unions. These events were accompanied by a massive media campaign especially within the conservative media against the then Labor Prime Minister, James Callaghan (Hay 1997).