Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:31:07.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Securitisation, terror, and control: towards a theory of the breaking point

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

JONATHAN BRIGHT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Securitisations permit the breaking of rules: but which rules? This article argues that any given security situation could be handled by a variety of different ‘rule breaking’ procedures, and that securitisations themselves, whilst permitting rule breaking in general, do not necessarily specify in advance which rules in particular have to be broken. This begs the question: how do specific threats result in specific rule breaking measures? This article explores this question through reference to ‘control orders’, an unusual legal procedure developed in the UK during the course of the war on terrorism. Once applied to an individual, a control order gives the government a meticulous control over every aspect of their life, up to and including deciding on which educational qualifications they can take. Despite this control, individuals under the regime remain technically ‘free’: and have frequently used this freedom to abscond from the police who are supposed to be watching them. How did a security policy which controls a suspect's educational future, but not their physical movements, develop? This article aims to answer this question, and in so doing present a reevaluation of the mechanisms through which the effects of securitisation manifest themselves.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 861 - 879
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Buzan, Barry, Wæver, Ole, and de Wilde, Jaap, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (London: Lynne Rienner, 1998)Google Scholar.

2 Ibid.

3 McSweeney, Bill, ‘Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School’, Review of International Studies, 22:1 (1996), pp. 81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Buzan et al., Security, p. 2.

5 Huysmans, Jef, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU (London: Routledge, 2006), p. 8Google Scholar.

6 Buzan et al., Security, p. 24.

7 Balzacq, Thierry (ed.), Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar.

8 Buzan et al., Security, p. 33.

9 Ibid., p. 25.

10 Williams, M. C., ‘Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 47:4 (2003), pp. 511–3, at p. 511CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 A third area of criticism has concerned the normative implications of securitisation theory. This is substantially beyond the scope of the present article, however for an introduction to this argument see Eriksson, J., ‘Observers or advocates? On the political role of security analysis’, Cooperation and Conflict, 34:3 (1999), pp. 311–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 See Balzacq, T., ‘The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context’, European Journal of International Relations, 11:2 (2005), pp. 171–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Strizel, H., ‘Towards a theory of securitization: Copenhagen and beyond’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:3 (2007), pp. 357–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Vuori, J. A., ‘Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:1 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See especially Strizel, ‘Towards a theory of securitization’, p. 363.

14 See Balzacq, Thierry, ‘The Policy Tools of Securitization: Information Exchange, EU Foreign and Interior Policies’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 46:1 (2008), pp. 75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neal, A., ‘Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: The Origins of FRONTEX’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 47:2 (2009), pp. 333–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Salter, M., ‘Securitization and desecuritization: a dramaturgical analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 11:4 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buzan, B. and Wæver, O., ‘Macrosecuritization and security constellations: reconsidering scale in securitization theory’, Review of International Studies, 25 (2009), pp. 253–76, see especially p. 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Balzacq, Thierry, ‘A theory of securitization: origins, core assumptions, and variants’, in Balzacq, (ed.), Securitization Theory, pp. 1–30. See especially pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

17 Williams, ‘Words, Images, Enemies’; see also McDonald, M., ‘Securitization and the Construction of Security’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:4 (2008), pp. 563–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ciuta, F., ‘Security and the problem of context: a hermeneutical critique of securitization theory’, Review of International Studies, 35 (2009), pp. 301–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Williams, ‘Words, Images, Enemies’, p. 521.

19 Ibid., p. 526.

20 In this regard see also Hansen, L., ‘Theorizing the image for Security Studies: Visual securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis’, European Journal of International Relations, 17:1 (2011), pp. 51–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 See, for example, in Bigo, Didier, Polices en Réseaux: L'expérience européenne (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 1997)Google Scholar.

22 Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity.

23 Vuori, ‘Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization’, p. 72; Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity, p. 9.

24 Bhatwal-Datta, M., ‘Securitizing Threats without the State: A case study of misgovernance as a security threat in Bangladesh’, Review of International Studies, 35 (2009), pp. 277–300, see especially p. 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Hansen, L., ‘The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 29:2 (2000), pp. 285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 See, for example, Wilkinson, C., ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Usable Outside Europe?’, Security Dialogue, 38:1 (2007), pp. 5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 In this regard see Balzacq, ‘The Policy Tools of Securitization’; Léonard, Sarah and Kaunert, Christian, ‘Reconceptualizing the audience in securitization theory’, in Balzacq, T. (ed.), Securitization Theory, pp. 57–76Google Scholar; Salter, ‘Securitization and desecuritization’; and Salter, Mark, ‘When securitization fails’, in Balzacq, T. (ed.), Securitization Theory, pp. 116–31Google Scholar.

28 See Collins, A., ‘Securitization, Frankenstein's Monster, and Malaysian Education’, The Pacific Review, 18:4 (2005), pp. 567–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roe, P.‘Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK's Decision To Invade Iraq’, Security Dialogue, 39:6 (2008), pp. 615–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Salter, ‘When securitization fails’.

29 Quotation from Buzan et al., Security, p. 25. For a discussion see Salter, ‘When securitization fails’, p. 121.

30 Salter, ‘When securitization fails’, p. 121.

31 Ibid., pp. 116–17.

32 See Buzan, B., ‘Will the ‘global war on terrorism’ be the new Cold War?’, International Affairs, 82:6 (2006), pp. 1101–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Buzan, B. and Wæver, O., ‘Macrosecuritization and security constellations: reconsidering scale in securitization theory’, Review of International Studies, 25 (2009), pp. 253–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Buzan et al., Security, p. 24.

34 Elbe, S., ‘Should HIV/AIDS be Securitized? The Ethical Dilemmas of Linking HIV/AIDS and Security’, International Studies Quarterly, 50:1 (2006), pp. 119–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vuori, ‘Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization’, pp. 65–99; Boswell, C.‘Migration Control in Europe After 9/11: Explaining the Absence of Securitization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 45:3 (2007), pp. 589–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Werner, W., ‘Securitization and Judicial Review: A Semiotic Perspective on the Relation Between the Security Council and International Judicial Bodies’, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 14:4 (2001), pp. 345–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hansen, L. and Nissenbaum, H., ‘Digital Disaster, Cyber Security, and the Copenhagen School’, International Studies Quarterly, 53 (2009), pp. 1155–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; P. Roe, ‘Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures’; Ven Bruusgaard, K. and Åtland, K., ‘When Security Speech Acts Misfire: Russia and the Elektron Incident’, Security Dialogue, 40:3 (2009), pp. 333–53Google Scholar.

35 For the concept itself see Schmitt, C., Political Theology, trans. Schwab, George (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)Google Scholar, for its connections to securitisation see W. Werner, ‘Securitization and Legal Theory’, COPRI Working Paper no. 27 (1998); Williams, ‘Words, Images, Enemies’; Taureck, R., ‘Securitization theory and securitization studies’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 9 (2006), pp. 53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Neal, ‘Securitization and Risk at the EU Border’.

37 Werner, ‘Securitization and Legal Theory’.

38 Buzan et al., Security, p. 151.

39 Balzacq, ‘A theory of securitization’, pp. 8–9.

40 See Balzacq, ‘The Three Faces of Securitization’, p. 185; Roe, ‘Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures’.

41 Léonard and Kaunert, ‘Reconceptualizing the audience in securitization theory’.

42 Williams, ‘Words, Images, Enemies’.

43 Hansen, ‘The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma’.

44 Wilkinson, ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour’.

45 Floyd, R., ‘Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: bringing together the Copenhagen and the Welsh Schools of security studies’, Review of International Studies, 33 (2007), pp. 327–50. See especially p. 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Vaughan, J., ‘The Unlikely Securitizer: Humanitarian Organizations and the Securitization of Indistinctiveness’, Security Dialogue, 40:3 (2009), pp. 263–85. See especially p. 278CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Buzan and Wæver, ‘Macrosecuritization and security constellations’, p. 258.

48 For examples see, Ven Bruusgard and Åtland, ‘When Security Speech Acts Misfire’; Bhatwal-Datta, ‘Securitizing Threats without the State’; and Wilkinson, ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan’.

49 For other examples of motivation see J. Vaughan, ‘The Unlikely Securitizer’; Ven Bruusgard and Åtland, ‘When Security Speech Acts Misfire’.

50 For a discussion see Elbe, ‘Should HIV/AIDS be Securitized?’; Floyd, ‘Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security’.

51 Buzan et al., Security, p. 29.

52 See, for example, Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity; Wilkinson, ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan’, p. 11.

53 Balzacq, Thierry, ‘Enquiries into methods: a new framework for securitization analysis’, in Balzacq, (ed.), Securitization Theory, pp. 31–54. See especially p. 34Google Scholar.

54 Walker, C., ‘Keeping control of terrorists without losing control of constitutionalism’, Stanford Law Review, 59 (2007), pp. 1395–463. See p. 1405Google Scholar.

55 Constitutional Affairs Committee, The operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the use of Special Advocates (London: The Stationery Office, 2005)Google Scholar.

56 Nellis, Mike, ‘Electronic Monitoring and the Creation of Control Orders for Terrorist Suspects in Britain’, in Abbas, Tahir (ed.), Islamic Political Radicalism: A European Perspective (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), pp. 263–78Google Scholar. See especially p. 265. See also Privy Counsellor Review Committee, Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review: Report (London: The Stationery Office, 2003), p. 51Google Scholar

57 Tierney, S., ‘Determining the State of Exception: What role for parliament and the courts?’, The Modern Law Review, 68 (2005), pp. 668–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dyzenhaus, David, The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Walker, ‘Keeping control of terrorists’, pp. 1406–7.

59 See House of Commons Hansard debates for 26 Jan 2005, pt. 4, Column 305.

60 Walker, ‘Keeping control of terrorists’, p. 1411.

61 Ibid., p. 1412.

62 Ibid., p. 1409.

63 See House of Commons Hansard debates for 28 Feb 2005, pt. 21, Column 691. I should note that the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act did also include provisions for a second type of ‘derogating’ control order, which would include greater restrictions and would violate article 5 rights. For the purposes of clarity, however, I have omitted derogating orders from this discussion, as to date no such order has been made. See Lord Carlile of Berriew, , Fifth Report of the Independent Reviewer Pursuant to Section 14(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (London: The Stationery Office, 2010), p. 6Google Scholar.

64 National Audit Office, The Electronic Monitoring of Adult Offenders (London: The Stationery Office, 2006)Google Scholar.

65 Nellis, ‘Electronic Monitoring’, p. 263.

66 Privy Counsellor Review Committee, ‘Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act’, p. 66.

67 Home Office, Counter-Terrorism Powers: Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society: A Discussion Paper (London: The Stationery Office, 2004), p. 27Google Scholar.

68 See, for example, Balzacq, ‘The Three Faces of Securitization’; Ciuta, ‘Security and the problem of context’.

69 Nellis, ‘Electronic Monitoring’, p. 267.

70 See House of Commons Hansard debates for 28 Feb 2005, pt. 21, Column 691.

71 Ibid., pt. 8, Column 650.

72 Ibid., pt. 8, Column 653.

73 Walker, ‘Keeping control of terrorists’, p. 1408, fn. 86.

74 See judgment in the case of AE v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 1743 (Admin).

75 Balzacq, ‘The Policy Tools of Securitization’, p. 79.

76 JUSTICE, ‘AF and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: JUSTICE press briefing’ (2009).

77 Lord Carlile of Berriew, Fifth Report of the Independent Reviewer, p. 7.

78 Audrey Gillan and Faisal al Yafai, ‘Control orders flaws exposed’, The Guardian (24 March 2005), available at: {www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/mar/24/uk.terrorism} accessed 4 October 2011.

79 Elsa McLaren, Richard Ford, and Stewart Tendler, ‘Reid blames opposition for control order fiasco’, The Times (18 October 2006), available at: {http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article604604.ece} accessed 4 October 2011.

80 Richard Watson, ‘Terror suspect speaks about life under “house arrest’’, Newsnight (16 June 2010), available at: {http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8743947.stm} accessed 4 October 2011.

81 CagePrisoners, Detention Immorality. The impact of UK domestic counter-terrorism policies on those detained in the war on terror (London: CagePrisoners, 2009), p. 53Google Scholar.

82 Matthew Ryder, ‘Control orders have been rebranded. Big problems remain’, The Guardian (28 January 2011), available at: {www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/jan/28/control-orders-protection-of-freedoms-bill} accessed 4 October 2011.

83 Salter, ‘Securitization and desecuritization’.