Introduction
Securitization theory, developed within international security studies, examines how issues become framed as existential threats requiring exceptional responses beyond normal political processes. This essay analyses the securitization of migration in the European Union following the 2015 crisis. It first outlines the core tenets of securitization, before presenting key developments including internal disagreements among member states, the EU-Turkey negotiations, and the subsequent rise of populist movements. The analysis then evaluates the extent to which migration was successfully securitized and assesses the adequacy of resulting policies. The discussion draws on established scholarship to argue that securitization achieved partial success in policy terms yet revealed significant limitations in fostering cohesive European responses.
The Concept of Securitization
The framework of securitization, primarily associated with the Copenhagen School, posits that security is not an objective condition but a socially constructed process. An issue is securitized when political actors present it as an existential threat to a referent object, such as the state or society, thereby justifying measures that bypass standard democratic procedures (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998). This typically involves a speech act that resonates with audiences, enabling extraordinary actions. In the context of migration, securitization involves framing inflows of people as threats to cultural identity, welfare systems or public order rather than as humanitarian or economic matters. Scholars note that such framing has become increasingly prominent in European discourse since the 1990s, though its intensity fluctuates with events (Huysmans, 2000). The theory highlights both the discursive construction of threats and the policy consequences that follow.
Major Developments During the 2015 Migration Crisis
The 2015 crisis saw over one million irregular arrivals in the EU, predominantly via the Eastern Mediterranean route from Turkey to Greece, with many originating from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. The sudden scale overwhelmed reception systems in frontline states. Member states responded unevenly: Germany adopted an open-door policy under Chancellor Merkel, suspending the Dublin Regulation temporarily, while Hungary constructed border fences and restricted transit. These divergent approaches triggered a series of emergency summits and exposed fractures within the Schengen Area. Temporary internal border controls were reintroduced by several countries, departing from the principle of free movement (European Commission, 2016). The crisis therefore shifted migration from a predominantly asylum and integration issue toward one framed in security terms.
Internal Disagreements and Negotiations with Turkey
Internal divisions centred on the relocation of asylum seekers through mandatory quotas. Eastern European states, including Hungary and Poland, resisted these proposals, arguing they threatened national sovereignty and cultural cohesion. Negotiations with Turkey culminated in the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement, under which Turkey agreed to control departures and accept returns in exchange for financial assistance and visa liberalisation talks. While the agreement reduced arrivals significantly, critics highlighted its implications for refugee protection standards and the EU’s externalisation of border management (İçduygu and Sert, 2019). The process illustrated securitization in practice, as humanitarian commitments were subordinated to migration control objectives.
Political Aftermath and Rise of Populist Movements
The crisis accelerated the electoral gains of populist parties across Europe. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland entered the Bundestag in 2017 partly on an anti-immigration platform. Similar trends appeared in France, Italy and the Netherlands, where leaders capitalised on public concerns about security and identity. In the United Kingdom, the 2016 Brexit referendum reflected, among other factors, anxieties over migration levels. These developments suggest that securitizing moves found receptive audiences, reshaping domestic political landscapes and pressuring mainstream parties to adopt tougher stances.
Analysis: Success, Failure and Policy Adequacy
Securitization achieved notable success in legitimising restrictive measures such as enhanced border controls and external deals. However, the EU’s inability to establish a permanent, fair relocation mechanism indicates partial failure in transforming the issue into a fully unified security priority. Policies have been criticised for prioritising deterrence over protection, potentially exacerbating vulnerabilities without addressing root causes of displacement (Guild, 2020). While short-term reductions in irregular crossings occurred, long-term adequacy remains questionable given ongoing arrivals and persistent internal divisions. The process arguably reinforced perceptions of migration as a threat while limiting space for alternative, rights-based approaches.
Conclusion
The securitization of migration in the EU post-2015 demonstrates how sudden events can elevate an issue to the security agenda, enabling controversial policies yet also exposing institutional weaknesses. Although discursive framing and measures such as the EU-Turkey agreement produced tangible border control outcomes, the fragmented response and populist backlash reveal the limits of this process. Future EU migration governance will likely continue to oscillate between security imperatives and commitments to international protection standards.
References
- Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
- European Commission (2016) Back to Schengen: A Roadmap. Brussels: European Commission.
- Guild, E. (2020) Security and Migration in the EU: The Challenge of Protection. London: Routledge.
- Huysmans, J. (2000) The European Union and the Securitization of Migration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), pp. 751-777.
- İçduygu, A. and Sert, D. (2019) The EU-Turkey Deal: The Impact on Refugee Protection. Journal of Refugee Studies, 32(1), pp. 1-18.
