Since the 2019 territorial defeat of the Islamic State (IS) in northeastern Syria, thousands of foreign nationals affiliated with the Islamic militant group have been detained in refugee camps and prisons in the region - the humanitarian conditions of which have come under increased scrutiny. As a result, the repatriation of these individuals has become a contentious migration-related policy issue and has led to diverse state responses. In the North American context, there is a striking contrast between Canada’s ‘passive’ approach and the United States’ ‘active’ role in these repatriation efforts. Through a comparative critical discourse analysis (CDA) using Fairclough’s methodological three-step framework and Balzacq’s sociological securitization theory, the public rationale of Canadian-American policy diversion is explored. As a result, this study contributes new knowledge to the field, providing unique insights on how and why two closely-allied countries justify their engagement with IS- affiliated citizens in fundamentally different ways.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:mau-61127 |
| Date | January 2023 |
| Creators | Wenstrup, Kaileigh |
| Publisher | Malmö universitet, Institutionen för globala politiska studier (GPS) |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds