Project description
From the local to the international level: perceptions of border security practices
When migrants and refugees arrived in Europe in 2015, the Hungarian government built a barbwire fence along the Hungarian-Serb border to prevent them from entering EU territory. This fence has been featured extensively in the media. However, not all stakeholders (border police, local policing organisations, border communities, local and national politicians, and local, national and international media) shared the same perceptions of the situation. The EU-funded SECURE BORDERS project aims to reflect on borders and their securitising practices. First, it will analyse how communities manage security issues locally. Second, it will explore how policymakers manage local security concerns. Third, it will consider the mistrust that can arise between communities at the local, national, regional and international levels.
Objective
In 2015 more than 1 million refugees and migrants entered Europe largely from conflict-ridden states such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Hungarian government single-handedly decided to stop the migration by building a barbwire wall along the Hungarian-Serb border. Many observers agree that building the fence was primarily a domestic political act to help the Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his party Fidesz to gain the far-right vote in support of his and his party’s re-election. Nonetheless, his landslide victory, predictably won on a populist ticket rallying against migrants and Muslims in April 2018, together with media and NGO reports on the treatment of migrants and refugees seemed to suggest to the outside world that the Hungarians were predominantly right-leaning, anti-migrant people who lack humanitarian compassion and are thus different from other Europeans. As my preliminary findings of exploratory research at the Hungarian-Serb border in summer 2018 suggest, however, the situation is much more nuanced. There is a substantial gap between the border police, local policing organisations, the local border communities, on the one hand, and local and national politicians, and the international media perception of the events and the Hungarian migration/refugee crisis and border security management, on the other. At the theoretical level, this raises a larger issue in security studies: how does securitizing work in practice? Taking securitization practices seriously through focusing on everyday performances of security, this project aims to analyse (1) how communities manage security concerns locally (especially when these concerns are ignored in the national or international spheres); (2) how local security concerns are mobilised elsewhere for political gains; and (3) how mistrust between communities is generated locally, nationally and internationally in order to explain the de-facto re-militarised EU border.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
- social sciences political sciences political policies civil society civil society organisations nongovernmental organizations
- humanities philosophy, ethics and religion religions islam
- social sciences sociology demography human migrations
You need to log in or register to use this function
We are sorry... an unexpected error occurred during execution.
You need to be authenticated. Your session might have expired.
Thank you for your feedback. You will soon receive an email to confirm the submission. If you have selected to be notified about the reporting status, you will also be contacted when the reporting status will change.
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
-
H2020-EU.1.3. - EXCELLENT SCIENCE - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
MAIN PROGRAMME
See all projects funded under this programme -
H2020-EU.1.3.2. - Nurturing excellence by means of cross-border and cross-sector mobility
See all projects funded under this programme
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
MSCA-IF - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (IF)
See all projects funded under this funding scheme
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
(opens in new window) H2020-MSCA-IF-2019
See all projects funded under this callCoordinator
Net EU financial contribution. The sum of money that the participant receives, deducted by the EU contribution to its linked third party. It considers the distribution of the EU financial contribution between direct beneficiaries of the project and other types of participants, like third-party participants.
SY23 3BF Aberystwyth
United Kingdom
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.