Securitization in the Shadow of Armed Conflict

IF 1.1 4区社会学 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Communist and Post-Communist Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1525/cpcs.2022.1775572

M. Jaroszewicz, Jan Grzymski

{"title":"Securitization in the Shadow of Armed Conflict","authors":"M. Jaroszewicz, Jan Grzymski","doi":"10.1525/cpcs.2022.1775572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the discourses and practices of securitization toward internally displaced persons (IDPs) after the Russian military intervention in the eastern part of Ukraine in 2014. It investigates in what ways the IDPs’ rights to vote in the local, parliamentary, and presidential elections in 2015–20 were presented as a security issue. The article discusses this unique case of securitization in the shadow of an armed conflict and the role of othering practices. The data were collected using 15 semi-structured in-depth interviews with IDP activists and experts, selected media, and legal documents. The analysis was conducted by applying a Foucauldian type of discourse analysis. It identified four types of othering practices: “suspicious” citizens and the governmentality of “unease,” routine security practices, the distinctiveness of the Donbas region within Ukraine, and “pragmatic” othering. These four types of othering practices resulted in the institutionalization of the securitization of IDPs and its tacit acceptance by the Ukrainian general public. Nevertheless, it also paradoxically paved the way for the desecuritization of IDPs’ rights, which happened with adoption of a new election code in 2020.","PeriodicalId":51623,"journal":{"name":"Communist and Post-Communist Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communist and Post-Communist Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/cpcs.2022.1775572","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article addresses the discourses and practices of securitization toward internally displaced persons (IDPs) after the Russian military intervention in the eastern part of Ukraine in 2014. It investigates in what ways the IDPs’ rights to vote in the local, parliamentary, and presidential elections in 2015–20 were presented as a security issue. The article discusses this unique case of securitization in the shadow of an armed conflict and the role of othering practices. The data were collected using 15 semi-structured in-depth interviews with IDP activists and experts, selected media, and legal documents. The analysis was conducted by applying a Foucauldian type of discourse analysis. It identified four types of othering practices: “suspicious” citizens and the governmentality of “unease,” routine security practices, the distinctiveness of the Donbas region within Ukraine, and “pragmatic” othering. These four types of othering practices resulted in the institutionalization of the securitization of IDPs and its tacit acceptance by the Ukrainian general public. Nevertheless, it also paradoxically paved the way for the desecuritization of IDPs’ rights, which happened with adoption of a new election code in 2020.

查看原文本刊更多论文

武装冲突阴影下的证券化

本文讨论了2014年俄罗斯军事干预乌克兰东部后国内流离失所者(IDPs)证券化的话语和实践。它调查了2015 - 2020年国内流离失所者在地方、议会和总统选举中的投票权是如何作为安全问题提出的。本文讨论了武装冲突阴影下证券化的独特案例以及其他实践的作用。这些数据是通过对国内流离失所者活动家和专家的15次半结构化深度访谈、选定的媒体和法律文件收集的。本文采用福柯式的语篇分析方法进行分析。报告还指出了其他四种做法:“可疑”的公民和“不安”的治理方式、常规的安全做法、顿巴斯地区在乌克兰境内的特殊性，以及“务实”的其他做法。这四种其他做法导致国内流离失所者证券化的制度化，并得到乌克兰公众的默许。然而，矛盾的是，它也为国内流离失所者权利的非证券化铺平了道路，这是在2020年通过新的选举法时发生的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Communist and Post-Communist Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Communist and Post-Communist Studies is an international journal covering all communist and post-communist states and communist movements, including both their domestic policies and their international relations. It is focused on the analysis of historical as well as current developments in the communist and post-communist world, including ideology, economy and society. It also aims to provide comparative foci on a given subject by inviting comments of a comparative character from scholars specializing in the same subject matter but in different countries.