| Abstract [eng] |
“The Building of Fortress Europe”: The European Union‘s Humanitarian, Security and Risk Discourses in the Context of 2015-2016 Migration Crisis - the paper examines the EU's migration crisis of 2015-2016. It started in April 2015, when the EU proposed concrete measures to resolve the crisis. The main institutions of the EU offer measures to migration crisis and justifies them with security, risk, humanitarian discourses. However, migrant rights NGOs indicate that humanitarian discourse elements used in the EU are based on safety and risk measures. In such case, the aim of this work is to define the relationship between the European Union’s humanitarian, security and risk discourses in the context of 2015-2016 migration crisis. The main question: What is the relationship between the European Union’s humanitarian, security and risk discourses in the context of 2015-2016 migration crisis? Auxiliary question: What is the relationship between the EU and NGOs humanitarian discourse? The object of research involves the two main EU institutions - the European Council and the European Commission as well as the Brussels-based NGOs (ECRE, PICUM, CCME). The main argument: by the help of humanitarian discourse the EU aims to justify security and risk practices to ensure migration control. In the paper, there is applied method of discourse analysis and the theory for defining security, risk and humanitarian elements in the EU discourse as well as the theory of transnational advocacy networks for analyzing NGOs means of behavior to influence the EU. Objectives of the study: 1) to define the EU's security, risk and humanitarian discourses; 2) to analyze the relationship between the EU’s discourse elements; 3) to indicate the NGOs proposed migration solutions to the migration crisis and core elements of its humanitarian discourse; 4) to compare the NGOs and the EU discourse and the proposed migration crisis measures in order to check whether the EU humanitarian discourse corresponds to the content of the humanitarian measures. The main finding of the study reveals that in the context of current migration crisis the EU uses humanitarian discourse elements in order to apply security and risk measures for migration control. Moreover, the main securitizing actor is the European Council. It stresses the security elements or particular referent objects: the EU's external borders, the Schengen zone, the European Community, which should be protected from the threat - migrants and their carriers. This is done by the help of security building measures: NATO and EUNAVFOR missions. Meanwhile, the European Commission has "softer" discourse. This can be explained by the EC closer ties with NGOs. The EU’s risk discourse is described as the non-compliance of asylum rules, which can lead to long-term risks. Thus, the EU proposes to apply the measures appropriate to the discourse – migrants’ redistribution schemes and etc. Furthermore, despite the fact that the EU has been using humanitarian elements – referring to the saving lives of migrants, protecting their rights, dignity, the right to asylum, but those do not meet the NGOs discourse and humanitarian measures. The EU does not defend the broader migrants’ rights: to have health care, children's rights etc. At the same time, it does not provide legal ways for migrants to enter the EU (with the exception of the labor migrants), and the solidarity between the EU and the countries of the region is ensured only by moving the protection of the rights of migrants to third parties. Finally, it should be noted that the study contributes to the debate of the security studies trying to define if the security practices or the discourse is more important to the securitization process. It is demonstrated that the practices reveal the lack of humanitarian measures taken by the EU. Further studies could concentrate on a comparison between the similar migration crisis in the EU and the world (for instance, Australia). |
