Analyzing the Disparity in Application of the Laws Governing Foreign Fighters
A Securitization Theory Approach
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13020060 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Matti Izora İbrahim (0000-0001-8899-3884, Necmettin Erbakan University, corresponding author), Taylan Özgür Kaya (0000-0003-0175-5854, Necmettin Erbakan University) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Publication date | 2024-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Global Security Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2057-3189 • E-ISSN: 2057-3189 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/jogss/ogae043 |
| OpenAlex | W4404563909 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 40 |
The Copenhagen School’s securitization theory provides a useful framework for analyzing how terrorism was constructed as an existential threat to international peace and security in the aftermath of 9/11. The purpose of this study is to shed light on the possible disparity in application of the laws governing foreign fighters, embodied in United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1373 (2001), UNSCR 2178 (2014), and EU Directive 541 (2017), as a result of the definitional vagueness in the legal frameworks. Specifically, we argue that the securitization of the terms “terrorism” and “foreign terrorist fighter” in these legal frameworks has created a precedent for categorically differentiating foreign fighters who traveled to the Syrian/Iraqi conflict as “terrorists,” while largely characterizing foreign fighters who traveled to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as benign “volunteers” or just “foreign fighters.” We further argue that this dichotomy not only oversimplifies the complex nature of these conflicts and the motivations of the individuals involved but fails to capture the security challenges posed by far-right extremists and other ideologically motivated fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. The findings suggest whether an act is called “terrorism” or whether a foreign fighter is perceived as a foreign terrorist fighter depends more on how powerful institutions and political actors frame and present it, rather than on any inherent qualities of the act itself. The key factor is how the individual is perceived and how the act is interpreted and understood within a society
Business · Financial system · Law and economics · Political science · Securitization · Sociology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Global Security and Public Health · International Law and Human Rights · Law
How To Do Things With Words
Securitizing migration in times of crisis
Security
The concept of the foreign terrorist fighter
When, how and why elites frame terrorists
Individuals in Securitization
Negotiating the Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism
Securitization and desecuritization
Post-racial politics, pre-emption and in/security
Foreign Fighters and the Case of Chechnya
Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitization theory
Theories, methods and practices – a longitudinal spatial analysis of the (de)securitization of the insurgency threat in Russia
Agents without agency
The threat of the ‘returning foreign fighter’
The ‘human’ as referent object
In Search of Meaning
EU’s Response to Foreign Fighters
Defeating transnational insurgencies
The Rise of Muslim Foreign Fighters
Foreign Fighters—Recent Trends
Reconceptualising the Legal Response to Foreign Fighters
From Byron to Bin Laden
The geopolitics of fear
Securitization and Risk at the EU Border
Radicalisation, Foreign Fighters and the Ukraine Conflict
The Non-Jihadi Foreign Fighters
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |