<p>Since HIV and AIDS were discovered in the early 1980s the infection rates have taken on the proportions of a global pandemic. Whilst the rates are still quite low in the Western World there are areas like Sub-Saharan Africa, of which South Africa is a part, where the rates are as high as 25%. In light of this a debate as to how the situation should be handled and dealt with has developed. In 2000 the United Nation Security Council debated HIV/AIDS as a threat tonational and international peace and security. This was the first time a virus or disease had been debated in this forum. The debate was instigated by, among others, the United States. If states in the Western World, where infection rates are still low, can view this issue as a threat to security, how are HIV/AIDS viewed in a country like South Africa with a prevalence rate of 25%? There are those who claim that in order to say that an issue poses a threat to security one has to define what constitutes a threat and define the concept of security. Is it a subjective value? Could a disease and/or a virus be declared a security threat and what would the logic behind that be? Following the end of the Cold War the study of security was developed as some scholars wanted to widen the traditionally state-centred and military concept of security and reconceptualize it so that it would be applicable to non- traditional security-threats. The theory of securitization was developed with this purpose. It introduces a security-concept that is shaped by a grammar of drama and urgency based in a logic of existential threats that call for measures beyond the normal code-of-conduct. Thus, studies into how military, health, social and political issues etc can be defined as issues of security, i.e. become securitized, are made possible. The aim of this thesis is to, through the theoretical lenses of securitization- theory and the discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, establish which meanings are involved in the structuring of the issue of HIV and AIDS in South Africa. Further we aim to establish whether these meanings can be related to a broader security concept, i.e. if there is a case of ‘securitization’ at hand. We have found, by analysing speeches given by government officials and key political documents between the years 1998 to 2002, that there are different trends in how HIV and AIDS have been defined, i.e. which meaning they have been given, and how these have been structured. Between 1998 and 2000 HIV and AIDS were seen as a threat and dealt with as such; they were securitized. In the years that followed we argue that there was a more cautious tone; the issue was desecuritized as the level of drama and urgency that had characterized the discourse of 1998-2000 was lowered between 2000-2002. The thesis acknowledges that it is too early to say whether this (de)securitizing move will succeed or not as time has yet to see the full effect of the move on a full desecuritization.</p>

Since HIV and AIDS were discovered in the early 1980s the infection rates have taken on the proportions of a global pandemic. Whilst the rates are still quite low in the Western World there are areas like Sub-Saharan Africa, of which South Africa is a part, where the rates are as high as 25%. In light of this a debate as to how the situation should be handled and dealt with has developed. In 2000 the United Nation Security Council debated HIV/AIDS as a threat tonational and international peace and security. This was the first time a virus or disease had been debated in this forum. The debate was instigated by, among others, the United States. If states in the Western World, where infection rates are still low, can view this issue as a threat to security, how are HIV/AIDS viewed in a country like South Africa with a prevalence rate of 25%? There are those who claim that in order to say that an issue poses a threat to security one has to define what constitutes a threat and define the concept of security. Is it a subjective value? Could a disease and/or a virus be declared a security threat and what would the logic behind that be? Following the end of the Cold War the study of security was developed as some scholars wanted to widen the traditionally state-centred and military concept of security and reconceptualize it so that it would be applicable to non- traditional security-threats. The theory of securitization was developed with this purpose. It introduces a security-concept that is shaped by a grammar of drama and urgency based in a logic of existential threats that call for measures beyond the normal code-of-conduct. Thus, studies into how military, health, social and political issues etc can be defined as issues of security, i.e. become securitized, are made possible. The aim of this thesis is to, through the theoretical lenses of securitization- theory and the discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, establish which meanings are involved in the structuring of the issue of HIV and AIDS in South Africa. Further we aim to establish whether these meanings can be related to a broader security concept, i.e. if there is a case of ‘securitization’ at hand. We have found, by analysing speeches given by government officials and key political documents between the years 1998 to 2002, that there are different trends in how HIV and AIDS have been defined, i.e. which meaning they have been given, and how these have been structured. Between 1998 and 2000 HIV and AIDS were seen as a threat and dealt with as such; they were securitized. In the years that followed we argue that there was a more cautious tone; the issue was desecuritized as the level of drama and urgency that had characterized the discourse of 1998-2000 was lowered between 2000-2002. The thesis acknowledges that it is too early to say whether this (de)securitizing move will succeed or not as time has yet to see the full effect of the move on a full desecuritization.

This thesis contributes to the literature on intergroup contact by exploring the long-term impact of grassroots efforts on members of majority and minority groups involved in an intractable conflict. In such circumstances, the conflict parties’ existential survival is perceived to be at stake, which results in salient group boundaries magnified by competing memories of collective trauma. Drawing empirical support from the Jerusalem Youth Chorus—an Israeli-Palestinian encounter program based in Jerusalem—this paper examines opportunities to desecuritize intergroup relationships from the bottom-up. To this purpose, it scrutinizes Gordon Allport’s Contact Hypothesis and narratives of historical trauma. The findings from 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with alumni participants provide unique insights into the impact of a hybrid approach to contact, with music and dialogue providing fertile ground for sustainably rethinking us-them relations toward greater boundary permeability. They also highlight the scope and the limits of conducting bottom-up “memory work” in a societal context of severe asymmetry. Group-specific results are highlighted.

The master thesis called Security of the Russian Federation: (de)securitization of the U.S. by Russian representatives deals with the security of Russia from the top representatives points of view. The analyzed time is determined by the presidential term of Dmitry Medvedev (2008 - April 2012). The aim of the thesis is to find out, why the U.S. was (de)securitized during the Medvedev's presidential term and confirm or disprove the predefined hypothesis. President, prime minister and minister of foreign affairs create the foreign politics of Russian federation. Their speeches and interviews are the main source of the data. The basic security terms and the theories (de)securitization are discussed in the first part of the thesis. The Russian point of view of security is defined in the following part. There are analyzed oficial documents focusing on definition of the national security, foreign policy and military field. There are also discussed the Russian media discourse since 90s of the 20 century and Russian- American relations. The last empirical part analyzes the interviews and speeches of the president Medvedev, of the prime minister Putin and of the minister of foreign affairs Lavrov in terms of their attitudes to the U.S.