Abstract

AbstractThe chapter is concerned with the conceptualisation of remedial actions, which have been deployed in response to the “migration crisis”. It discusses how the EU frame-narrative has shifted in favour of risk, resilience, and “exceptionality”, leaving human security dispersed among different types of policy actions. With this in mind, the chapter discusses at length the framing and development of specific policy instruments such as the so-called “EU-Turkey deal”, dataveillance systems, the “hot-spot approach”, or reform of Frontex and Europol, to name a few. It also discusses the emergence of resilience as an important security logic. In this respect, it analyses how this relatively new security narrative has heavily influenced EU security and policy discourse on migration and migrants, calling for increased administrative resilience of the EU asylum system, or border security system, to name a few. Further, the chapter discusses how risk management, resilience, “exceptionality” and human security have been intertwining in policy responses to terrorism, trans-border organised crime, as well as in the utilisation of EU military means in increasing resilience outside EU borders. In this respect, it looks into EUFOR “Sophia”, Frontex Joint Operations and EU capacity building and border assistance missions, discussing their securitising features.

Highlights

  • The collective conceptualisation of remedial action constitutes the concluding part of the frame-narrative

  • The remedial action phase marks a shift in the dynamics of the interpretative process as well as between the EU policy actors

  • The framing of suitable policy responses has been visibly dominated by the European Commission, the European Council, the Council of the European Union and, to some extent, the European External Action Service – the actors that have the most significant impact on the shaping and implementation of security policies and in the EU

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The collective conceptualisation of remedial action constitutes the concluding part of the frame-narrative. Conceptualisation of remedial action often proves to be most complex, ambiguous, and confusing part of frame-narrative (Schön & Rein, 1991; van Hulst & Yanow, 2016) It commonly becomes a forum for tensions between security logics, be it those which have already reached structuration in the diagnosis and evaluation or new interpretations that have entered the stage in the last moment (Boas & Rothe, 2016). In this sense, the remedial action phase may follow the interpretative path that has already been set up, and include a change of internal dynamics of the frame-narrative, downgrading, emphasising specific logics, or even completely diverting from the diagnosis and evaluation, introducing ambiguities and incoherencies into the framing process Instead of focusing predominantly on humanitarian aspects of the crisis, the EU policy actors have been explicitly promoting the risk-oriented measures, emphasising the risk management approach and introducing the concept of resilience into the EU frame-narrative

Stępka, Identifying Security Logics in the EU Policy Discourse, IMISCOE
Risk Management
The “Hotspot Approach”
Returns, Readmission and Detention
Intelligence Cooperation, Surveillance and Control
10 The interoperability platform initially encompasses the following databases
EU-Turkey Statement
Relocation and Resettlement
Comments
Resilience
Reforming Common European Asylum System
European Union Trust Funds
EU Border, Capacity Building and Assistance Missions
EUNAVFOR MED “Sophia”
Joint Border Operations
Conclusion be such a mission but let us stop calling it humanitarian
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call