Final Report Summary - EUMIGPOL (Securitization versus Depoliticization in the European Union Asylum and Migration Policy: The Role of the New Agencies (FRONTEX, EASO and Large-Scale IT Syst. Agency))
This project set out to examine the evolution of the European Union (EU) asylum and migration policy. It aimed to elucidate an important apparent contradiction at the heart of this policy: the simultaneous co-existence of two seemingly opposite trends - 'securitization' on the one hand and 'depoliticization' on the other hand. The research project aimed to account for this apparent contradiction by developing an original theoretical framework combining insights from security studies, public policy and European studies. In doing so, the project aimed to make a significant contribution to knowledge on European security governance. In addition to this original theoretical contribution, the proposed project sought to generate new empirical knowledge on European agencies dealing with asylum and migration, as well as internal security, matters.
Background and aims of the research project:
Migration and asylum issues have become important topics of contemporary security politics in Europe, both in the 'real world' of policies and in the scholarly literature on the subject. This trend has often been referred to as 'the securitization of migration', that is, the extreme politicization of migration and its presentation as a security threat. As the EU has acquired an increasing number of competences over asylum and migration matters in the last few years, several scholars have argued that this securitization trend has been particularly visible in the EU asylum and migration policy.
However, the development of the EU asylum and migration policy has also been characterised by another trend over the last few years, which has received far less attention to date. It can be described as 'agencification', that is the creation of a certain number of independent European agencies to deal with a growing number of internal security issues, including asylum and migration, such as the European Agency for the management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the member states of the European Union (also known as 'Frontex'), the European asylum support office (EASO), and the agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems (IT Agency).
As these agencies are specialised and politically independent administrative structures, the 'agencification'trend can be interpreted as leading in principle to increased levels of 'depoliticization'. Against this background, the main research question underpinning this project was: how can one account for the co-existence of these two seemingly opposite trends of 'securitization' and 'depoliticization', and what have been their effects on the development of the EU asylum and migration policy?
Execution of the research project:
First of all, a systematic and comprehensive review of the existing secondary sources on European agencies dealing with asylum and migration matters was conducted by the research fellow. It clearly indicated that little was known about the work of Frontex, whilst, at that time, the EASO and the IT Agency were not fully operational yet. Secondly, a systematic and comprehensive review of the existing literature on securitization was conducted. It highlighted that securitization theory at that stage of development was not fully able to capture and account for securitization dynamics in the EU. This is notably because of the over-emphasis on 'speech acts', which is badly suited to an empirical case like the EU, which is characterised by a significant level of bureaucratisation and technocracy. Thirdly, a new securitization framework better suited to the EU was developed by drawing upon insights from security studies, European studies and public policy. It is further explained below in the section presenting the research findings. Fourthly, extensive data on the three agencies was systematically collected.
As Frontex has been established for a longer period than EASO and the IT Agency, a significant part of the data collected related to Frontex. However, as much data as possible was also collected regarding the other two agencies. Two main data collection methods were used, namely documentary analysis and semi-structured elite interviews. Official documents relating to the three agencies were systematically collected, whilst 42 semi-structured elite interviews were conducted with officials from the EU institutions, national bureaucracies and the agencies, as well as representatives from non-governmental organisations, in the course of the research project. Whilst some interviews had to be conducted by phone, the large majority of interviews were conducted face-to-face during fieldwork trips.
Finally, in conjunction with updates to the literature review, the data was fully analysed. Research findings have also been written up and presented at various conferences, seminars and workshops, both at the host institution and elsewhere. Some of them have already been published in peer-reviewed publications as explained in the below section on dissemination.
Overview of main research findings:
The research project has generated significant theoretical and empirical insights.
From a theoretical viewpoint, the research project has considerably advanced the development of securitization theory. Securitization theory, which has been pioneered by Ole Waever and Barry Buzan (known as the 'Copenhagen School'), states that security threats come into being following a process of 'securitization', that is, their presentation as an existential threat in a speech act, which is then accepted by an audience. The project has questioned the extent to which this conceptualisation of securitization processes applies to the EU, given its sui generis character, in particular its perceived bureaucratic nature and the existence of various possible audiences. Having established that the traditional securitization theory cannot adequately account for securitization processes in the EU, the project has amended and further developed securitization theory in general.
In order to better capture securitization processes, an amended securitization theory has been developed by drawing upon insights from security studies, public policy and European studies. It is characterised by two innovative aspects. First of all, it has been suggested putting more emphasis on practices, rather than discourses, in the study of securitization processes given the highly bureaucratic and technocratic nature of an organisation like the EU. In addition, it has been proposed in the project to reconceptualise securitization theory as comprising three spheres, namely the asecurity sphere (characterised by routines), the politicized sphere (characterised by normal politics and political debates) and the securitized sphere (characterised by extraordinary measures and emergency).
The sphere of 'asecurity', which has tended to be neglected in the initial formulation of securitization theory and in studies of securitization processes to date, is characterised by routines, regulation, normalisation and bureaucratisation, which make it the antithesis of security in some respects. However, routines and bureaucracies are not necessarily neutral or benign; they can also be the sites of domination, coercion and power games. From that viewpoint, they belong to the realm of security. Thus, it has been concluded in the project that depoliticization (or asecurity) is not necessarily the antithesis of securitization. Rather, it would be more adequate to conceptualise security as a continuum ranging from 'asecurity' through 'politicization' to 'securitization', with possible overlaps between these spheres and policy issues regularly moving back and forth on this continuum.
From an empirical point of view, the project has shown that the EU institutions and bodies, such as the European agencies dealing with asylum and migration matters, can be best conceptualised as operating in the 'asecurity' realm trough the development of routines and regulation. In contrast, some other actors, such as pro-migrant non-governmental organisations (NGOs), sometimes use securitization strategies in a bid to move migration and asylum issues on the security continuum into the politicized realm. They do so, because, in the realm of 'asecurity', there is very little public debate on the basis that the issues that are being dealt with are largely technical and not political. Actors such as pro-migrant NGOs are therefore largely excluded and attempt to change this situation through securitization speech acts. Thus, one of the major empirical findings of the research project is that, contrary to a commonly held view, the three European agencies examined - namely Frontex, the EASO and the IT Agency - have not securitized asylum and migration in the EU in the sense of the Copenhagen School. However, on certain occasions, they have contributed to the securitization of asylum and migration, not through speech acts, but through the development of certain practices, routines and forms of regulation. Another empirical key-finding, which also goes against commonly accepted views, is that it is mainly pro-migrant actors, such as pro-migrant NGOs, that have used securitizing speech acts in European debates in order to draw attention to the plight of migrants and asylum-seekers.
Relevance and socio-economic impact of the project:
The research findings of the project are important to inform European political debates on migration, which is one of the most significant and sensitive topics on the political agenda at the moment. In particular, they are of direct relevance to policy-makers and NGOs, at both the EU and national levels, who deal with asylum and migration matters. It is important for them to understand how migration can become a 'securitized' and particularly sensitive issue, since this has an important bearing on the policies developed to deal with it as it may restrict the options available to policy-makers. In addition, the research findings will also have an impact on the current important debates within the EU on the future role of European agencies in the EU institutional architecture, as the project has generated detailed findings on the functioning and impact of the three agencies that deal with asylum and migration matters in the EU, namely Frontex, the EASO and the IT Agency.
Background and aims of the research project:
Migration and asylum issues have become important topics of contemporary security politics in Europe, both in the 'real world' of policies and in the scholarly literature on the subject. This trend has often been referred to as 'the securitization of migration', that is, the extreme politicization of migration and its presentation as a security threat. As the EU has acquired an increasing number of competences over asylum and migration matters in the last few years, several scholars have argued that this securitization trend has been particularly visible in the EU asylum and migration policy.
However, the development of the EU asylum and migration policy has also been characterised by another trend over the last few years, which has received far less attention to date. It can be described as 'agencification', that is the creation of a certain number of independent European agencies to deal with a growing number of internal security issues, including asylum and migration, such as the European Agency for the management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the member states of the European Union (also known as 'Frontex'), the European asylum support office (EASO), and the agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems (IT Agency).
As these agencies are specialised and politically independent administrative structures, the 'agencification'trend can be interpreted as leading in principle to increased levels of 'depoliticization'. Against this background, the main research question underpinning this project was: how can one account for the co-existence of these two seemingly opposite trends of 'securitization' and 'depoliticization', and what have been their effects on the development of the EU asylum and migration policy?
Execution of the research project:
First of all, a systematic and comprehensive review of the existing secondary sources on European agencies dealing with asylum and migration matters was conducted by the research fellow. It clearly indicated that little was known about the work of Frontex, whilst, at that time, the EASO and the IT Agency were not fully operational yet. Secondly, a systematic and comprehensive review of the existing literature on securitization was conducted. It highlighted that securitization theory at that stage of development was not fully able to capture and account for securitization dynamics in the EU. This is notably because of the over-emphasis on 'speech acts', which is badly suited to an empirical case like the EU, which is characterised by a significant level of bureaucratisation and technocracy. Thirdly, a new securitization framework better suited to the EU was developed by drawing upon insights from security studies, European studies and public policy. It is further explained below in the section presenting the research findings. Fourthly, extensive data on the three agencies was systematically collected.
As Frontex has been established for a longer period than EASO and the IT Agency, a significant part of the data collected related to Frontex. However, as much data as possible was also collected regarding the other two agencies. Two main data collection methods were used, namely documentary analysis and semi-structured elite interviews. Official documents relating to the three agencies were systematically collected, whilst 42 semi-structured elite interviews were conducted with officials from the EU institutions, national bureaucracies and the agencies, as well as representatives from non-governmental organisations, in the course of the research project. Whilst some interviews had to be conducted by phone, the large majority of interviews were conducted face-to-face during fieldwork trips.
Finally, in conjunction with updates to the literature review, the data was fully analysed. Research findings have also been written up and presented at various conferences, seminars and workshops, both at the host institution and elsewhere. Some of them have already been published in peer-reviewed publications as explained in the below section on dissemination.
Overview of main research findings:
The research project has generated significant theoretical and empirical insights.
From a theoretical viewpoint, the research project has considerably advanced the development of securitization theory. Securitization theory, which has been pioneered by Ole Waever and Barry Buzan (known as the 'Copenhagen School'), states that security threats come into being following a process of 'securitization', that is, their presentation as an existential threat in a speech act, which is then accepted by an audience. The project has questioned the extent to which this conceptualisation of securitization processes applies to the EU, given its sui generis character, in particular its perceived bureaucratic nature and the existence of various possible audiences. Having established that the traditional securitization theory cannot adequately account for securitization processes in the EU, the project has amended and further developed securitization theory in general.
In order to better capture securitization processes, an amended securitization theory has been developed by drawing upon insights from security studies, public policy and European studies. It is characterised by two innovative aspects. First of all, it has been suggested putting more emphasis on practices, rather than discourses, in the study of securitization processes given the highly bureaucratic and technocratic nature of an organisation like the EU. In addition, it has been proposed in the project to reconceptualise securitization theory as comprising three spheres, namely the asecurity sphere (characterised by routines), the politicized sphere (characterised by normal politics and political debates) and the securitized sphere (characterised by extraordinary measures and emergency).
The sphere of 'asecurity', which has tended to be neglected in the initial formulation of securitization theory and in studies of securitization processes to date, is characterised by routines, regulation, normalisation and bureaucratisation, which make it the antithesis of security in some respects. However, routines and bureaucracies are not necessarily neutral or benign; they can also be the sites of domination, coercion and power games. From that viewpoint, they belong to the realm of security. Thus, it has been concluded in the project that depoliticization (or asecurity) is not necessarily the antithesis of securitization. Rather, it would be more adequate to conceptualise security as a continuum ranging from 'asecurity' through 'politicization' to 'securitization', with possible overlaps between these spheres and policy issues regularly moving back and forth on this continuum.
From an empirical point of view, the project has shown that the EU institutions and bodies, such as the European agencies dealing with asylum and migration matters, can be best conceptualised as operating in the 'asecurity' realm trough the development of routines and regulation. In contrast, some other actors, such as pro-migrant non-governmental organisations (NGOs), sometimes use securitization strategies in a bid to move migration and asylum issues on the security continuum into the politicized realm. They do so, because, in the realm of 'asecurity', there is very little public debate on the basis that the issues that are being dealt with are largely technical and not political. Actors such as pro-migrant NGOs are therefore largely excluded and attempt to change this situation through securitization speech acts. Thus, one of the major empirical findings of the research project is that, contrary to a commonly held view, the three European agencies examined - namely Frontex, the EASO and the IT Agency - have not securitized asylum and migration in the EU in the sense of the Copenhagen School. However, on certain occasions, they have contributed to the securitization of asylum and migration, not through speech acts, but through the development of certain practices, routines and forms of regulation. Another empirical key-finding, which also goes against commonly accepted views, is that it is mainly pro-migrant actors, such as pro-migrant NGOs, that have used securitizing speech acts in European debates in order to draw attention to the plight of migrants and asylum-seekers.
Relevance and socio-economic impact of the project:
The research findings of the project are important to inform European political debates on migration, which is one of the most significant and sensitive topics on the political agenda at the moment. In particular, they are of direct relevance to policy-makers and NGOs, at both the EU and national levels, who deal with asylum and migration matters. It is important for them to understand how migration can become a 'securitized' and particularly sensitive issue, since this has an important bearing on the policies developed to deal with it as it may restrict the options available to policy-makers. In addition, the research findings will also have an impact on the current important debates within the EU on the future role of European agencies in the EU institutional architecture, as the project has generated detailed findings on the functioning and impact of the three agencies that deal with asylum and migration matters in the EU, namely Frontex, the EASO and the IT Agency.