Securitization of Migration: speech act or sovereign act? Case Study of Poland in 2015-2025

Abstract

This article examines the Polish migration policy of 2015-2025 accompanied by security discourse, and asks the following question: Does the Polish case of migration policy fit into the classical model of securitization advanced by the Copenhagen School authors or the Schmittian concept of sovereign authority? If the latter was the case, then it raises an important question: in light of executive decisions made by the government, why was aggressive anti-migrant discourse even necessary? Drawing on discourse analysis of high-level government officials’ statements, legal and policy documents related to the state of emergency and secondary analyses of Polish media coverage, the article argues that the Polish government did not primarily seek to securitize migration  to persuadeits domestic audience. Rather, executive authorities enacted exceptional measures through sovereign power and subsequently employed security rhetoric as justificatory discourse aimed largely at external audiences, including the European Union and international human rights organizations.  The research problem is derived from the theoretical assumption that security policy is largely shaped by the series of “speech acts” which constitute a so-called ‘securitizing act’ or a ‘securitizing move’ through which political actors introduce a particular issue as an existential threat and advance it to the forefront of the security agenda. Considering the urgency of the matter, restrictive or even unprecedented, measures are therefore justified to ensure survival.   The theoretical framework of this study combines the securitization theory associated with the Copenhagen School and the concept of sovereign power developed by Carl Schmitt. According to securitization theory, successful securitization takes place when political actors frame a specific issue as an existential threat to the referent object and this threat narrative is accepted and supported by a relevant audience. In contrast to  securitization theory, which requires widespread public consent and mobilization, the Schmittian concept of sovereign power underscores the decisive role of the sovereign, who does not seek large-scale public approval and possesses the authority to identify or frame security threats and their respective countermeasures. The study is based on a qualitative research methodology, namely discourse-analysis. The analysis examines official statements, public speeches and policy documentsissued by political leaders and state institutions to identify how discourse on migration is constructed in the context of security and how extraordinary measures are legitimized. The findings suggest that securitization can function not necessarily as a prerequisite for extraordinary measures, but as a post-hoc narrative strategy accompanying and/or justifying sovereign acts already taken as is evident in the case of Polish migration case. Moreover, the research showed that securitization theory or Schmittian sovereign act separately does not explain the migration policy dynamic, rather these two theories are complementary in interpreting the issue.