This study uses Kenneth Burke's concept of terministic filters to examine what the word security means to two different publics within the academic discipline of international relations. It studies the rhetoric feminist international relations theorists and contrasts their view security with that of realist and neo-realist interpretations of international affairs. This study claims to open up the possibility for studying the rhetoric of emergent movements through the use of dramatistic or terministic screens.

This paper presents the results of a critical discourse analysis of a selection of Canada’s security texts and argues that the country’s security discourses construct Muslims as dangerous and different from the normative Canadian. The research relies on a social constructionist understanding of discourse and the recognition that our state’s representatives and agents, operating from positions of discursive power, wield disproportionate influence in directing the national conversation and managing the signals that shape our social attitudes and imaginaries. By persistently qualifying terrorism with Islam, portraying the terrorist figure as a religiously and ideologically-motivated actor opposed to ‘Western values’ and by casting suspicion on the ordinary behaviour of Muslims, Canada’s security discourses produce a mental model in which Islam and its followers are associated with a propensity for terrorist violence. The discourses also naturalize the idea that Muslims are in need of surveillance, not only by the state’s agents, but by the public itself. When examined alongside a body of research illustrating Canada’s ‘visible minority’ population continues to be negatively affected by dominant group discrimination, the results of the study raise questions about the culpability of state representatives in the reproduction of ideas of difference which continue to inform the country’s social imaginary and hinder the equality and inclusivity of minority groups within the national collective.

This paper presents the results of a critical discourse analysis of a selection of Canada’s security texts and argues that the country’s security discourses construct Muslims as dangerous and different from the normative Canadian. The research relies on a social constructionist understanding of discourse and the recognition that our state’s representatives and agents, operating from positions of discursive power, wield disproportionate influence in directing the national conversation and managing the signals that shape our social attitudes and imaginaries. By persistently qualifying terrorism with Islam, portraying the terrorist figure as a religiously and ideologically-motivated actor opposed to ‘Western values’ and by casting suspicion on the ordinary behaviour of Muslims, Canada’s security discourses produce a mental model in which Islam and its followers are associated with a propensity for terrorist violence. The discourses also naturalize the idea that Muslims are in need of surveillance, not only by the state’s agents, but by the public itself. When examined alongside a body of research illustrating Canada’s ‘visible minority’ population continues to be negatively affected by dominant group discrimination, the results of the study raise questions about the culpability of state representatives in the reproduction of ideas of difference which continue to inform the country’s social imaginary and hinder the equality and inclusivity of minority groups within the national collective.

South Korea’s security discourse on the nuclear threat posed by North Korea has been dichotomised by its position within the political spectrum between the progressives and conservatives. By drawing upon Securitisation Theory (ST), this study challenges the current security discourse in South Korea, which has divided and misled the public as well as securitising actors. This study examines the security discourses of the Roh Moo-hyun (2003–2008) and Lee Myung-bak (2008–2013) administrations, since they represent the archetypes of the progressives and conservatives respectively. The results of the analysis suggest that the current security discourses that have been prevalent in South Korea do not correspond with reality and, subsequently, the discourses were not able to deal with real challenges that the nuclear threat posed. This research also explains the root cause of the distorted security discourses by applying a ‘discursive chasm’ as a preliminary concept, which indicates a discursive structure that fundamentally impedes the performance of securitising actors’ articulation, and that distorts the discursive formation (securitisation processes). The chasms consist of three elusive discourses: first, a discourse on threats that cannot simply be said to be either imminent or not imminent (nuclear weapons as materiality and discourse); second, a discourse on the other that cannot easily be defined (the difficulty of representation of North Korea); and third, a discourse on measures that cannot easily be realised (intangible extraordinary measures).

This paper presents the results of a critical discourse analysis of a selection of Canada’s security texts and argues that the country’s security discourses construct Muslims as dangerous and different from the normative Canadian. The research relies on a social constructionist understanding of discourse and the recognition that our state’s representatives and agents, operating from positions of discursive power, wield disproportionate influence in directing the national conversation and managing the signals that shape our social attitudes and imaginaries. By persistently qualifying terrorism with Islam, portraying the terrorist figure as a religiously and ideologically-motivated actor opposed to ‘Western values’ and by casting suspicion on the ordinary behaviour of Muslims, Canada’s security discourses produce a mental model in which Islam and its followers are associated with a propensity for terrorist violence. The discourses also naturalize the idea that Muslims are in need of surveillance, not only by the state’s agents, but by the public itself. When examined alongside a body of research illustrating Canada’s ‘visible minority’ population continues to be negatively affected by dominant group discrimination, the results of the study raise questions about the culpability of state representatives in the reproduction of ideas of difference which continue to inform the country’s social imaginary and hinder the equality and inclusivity of minority groups within the national collective.

South Korea’s security discourse on the nuclear threat posed by North Korea has been dichotomised by its position within the political spectrum between the progressives and conservatives. By drawing upon Securitisation Theory (ST), this study challenges the current security discourse in South Korea, which has divided and misled the public as well as securitising actors. This study examines the security discourses of the Roh Moo-hyun (2003–2008) and Lee Myung-bak (2008–2013) administrations, since they represent the archetypes of the progressives and conservatives respectively. The results of the analysis suggest that the current security discourses that have been prevalent in South Korea do not correspond with reality and, subsequently, the discourses were not able to deal with real challenges that the nuclear threat posed. This research also explains the root cause of the distorted security discourses by applying a ‘discursive chasm’ as a preliminary concept, which indicates a discursive structure that fundamentally impedes the performance of securitising actors’ articulation, and that distorts the discursive formation (securitisation processes). The chasms consist of three elusive discourses: first, a discourse on threats that cannot simply be said to be either imminent or not imminent (nuclear weapons as materiality and discourse); second, a discourse on the other that cannot easily be defined (the difficulty of representation of North Korea); and third, a discourse on measures that cannot easily be realised (intangible extraordinary measures).

The thesis subject is based on a report published by Amnesty International with the title ”Dangerously Disproportionate: The ever expanding security state in Europe”. The report accuses EU states of an ongoing securitization due to terrorism and the migration crises that has led to the discrimination of especially Muslims and foreign nationals. With the report as starting point this paper aims to investigate how inclusion and exclusion is made in the security discourse of the Swedish government and parliament between 2015 and 2017. The time frame is chosen based on Amnesty’s assessment of a shift in paradigm with starting point after the terror attacks in Paris 2015. As theory and method this paper makes use of Laclau & Mouffe´s discourse theory to perform a discourse analyses. Previous research of scientists and theorists is used to operationalize both inclusion and exclusion. The results of the study show that inclusion and exclusion in the discourse is made by talking about the migration crises, unaccompanied refugee children, antisemitism, terrorists, and those who need protection; us. One of the most prominent conclusions related to the analysis is that the figure of the migrant is excluded by means of framing it as a security problem leading to the possible system collapse of prominent welfare and social functions in society. / Uppsatsens ämnesval bygger på Amnesty Internationals rapport med titeln ” Dangerously Disproportionate: The ever expanding security state in Europe” som anklagar de europeiska länderna för en säkerhetiseringsprocess på grund av terrorism och migrationskrisen, vilket huvudsakligen drabbar migranter och människor av muslimsk tro. Med rapporten som utgångspunkt valdes en undersökning av inkludering och exkludering i den svenska regeringens och riksdagens säkerhetsdiskurs med målet att söka efter hur inkludering och exkludering ”görs” i relation till migrations- och terrorkrisen mellan åren 2015 och 2017. Tidsramen valdes på grund av att Amnesty Internationals rapport pekade ut ett paradigmskifte efter terrordådet i Paris 2015. Som teori och analysmetod används Laclau & Mouffes diskursteori som bygger på premissen att verkligheten är socialt konstruerad. Som operationaliseringar av begreppen inkludering och exkludering användes tidigare forskning. Resultatet av undersökningen visade att inkludering och exkludering görs i diskursen när det talas om migrationskrisen, ensamkommande, antisemitism, terrorister och den gruppen som ska skyddas. En av de mest tydliga slutsatser som dras från analysen är att migranten framställs som ett säkerhetsproblem som är ansvarigt för den hotande systemkollapsen av välfärden och viktiga samhällsfunktioner i Sverige, samt att det är en tydlig förändring i förhållande till en tidigare mer generös och inkluderande hållning mot migranten.

The analysis of security policy, in its variations, regularly deals with the question of what each actor wants to promote in domestic or international politics, in other words, what is his interest. The term "national interest" is not an abstract category and a rhetorical turn legitimizing government action in front of the public audience or in dispute with political opposition. One of the aims of the presented thesis is to present the concept of national interest as a useful tool enabling closer research of domestic policy within the security context. Our main thematic focus, in which we examine the constitution of national interest, is the Czech counterterrorism policy in the context of the reaction of the Czech government and security forces to the terrorist attacks in Paris in autumn 2015 and in Brussels in March of the following year. An extraordinary measure after the attacks in Brussels in the form of the deployment of the Czech Army performing police tasks in mixed patrols in three Czech cities is for us a key manifestation of counterterrorism policy. This constitution of the security policy, we are further investigating. The main motivation is to explain the reasons why the mentioned security measure took place, which has no analogs in the history of the Czech Republic. We conclude that...

This Master's thesis dealt with securitization attempts related to the planned construction of a new reactor at the Dukovany NPP. Therefore, its aim was to find, analyse and explain securitization speech acts associated with the planned reactor, in the period from summer 2015 to December 2020 using the critical discourse analysis approach. The results show that securitization speech acts of this kind do appear in the Czech public sphere and are articulated mainly by four groups of actors: representatives of Austria, Czech environmental NGOs, Czech governmental representatives, and Czech political opposition. These actors have different goals: to stop the construction of the reactor, to implement the construction of the reactor, or to influence the way in which the construction will be implemented. One case of successful securitization was found in the outcome: The Czech government was able to enforce extraordinary measures that deviated from standard democratic processes using security-based arguments. Their goal was to implement the construction of the reactor. It remains to add that the research also revealed three important functional actors who co-created the discourse: the BIS secret service, the SÚJB nuclear safety office and the company ČEZ.