European Solidarity?
Translated title
Europæisk solidaritet?
Author
Sørensen, Lone
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2013
Submitted on
2013-06-25
Pages
68
Abstract
I marts 2013 afsluttede EU anden fase af Det fælles europæiske asylsystem (CEAS). Trods den skæve fordeling af ansvar, som den græske asylsituation tydeliggjorde, og vedvarende kritik af Dublinforordningen, blev spørgsmålet om fælles ansvar og en mere ligelig fordeling af asylansøgere ikke genåbnet i denne fase. Specialet undersøger, hvorfor situationen i Grækenland ikke fik medlemsstaterne til at påtage sig et større fælles ansvar. Det gør det gennem et casestudie af danske mediers omtale af asylsituationen i Grækenland. Metodisk kombineres Norman Faircloughs kritiske diskursanalyse—som undersøger, hvordan sprog former offentlig debat og magtforhold—med framingteori, der ser på, hvordan emner indrammes og dermed guider forståelsen. Undersøgelsen identificerer tre dominerende diskurser i medierne: en Sympati-diskurs, en Grænsekontrol-diskurs og en Solidaritet-diskurs. Med afsæt i Jef Huysmans’ teori peger analysen på tre underliggende principper: at nedtone asylansøgeres flugtgrunde, at have et indadvendt nationalt fokus og at opfatte asyl primært som en byrde. En gennemgang af CEAS’ politiske mål tyder på, at de samme principper i vidt omfang går igen i politikudformningen. Principperne fremstår naturaliserede og præger både mediedebat og politik. Dermed bliver debatten om asyl i Europa—og om fælles ansvar—i høj grad omformet til et spørgsmål om dansk national sikkerhed snarere end om menneskerettigheder og international beskyttelse. Det flytter fokus væk fra asylansøgerne og deres motiver. Principperne nedtoner behovet for fælles ansvar og illustrerer en sikkerhedsliggørelse af asyl. Konklusionen er, at den græske situation ikke førte til større fælles ansvar, fordi spørgsmålet er indlejret i en sikkerhedsliggørelsesproces, der prioriterer sikkerhed frem for forpligtende ansvarsdelingsmekanismer.
In March 2013, the European Union completed the second phase of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Despite the unequal sharing of responsibility highlighted by the asylum situation in Greece and ongoing criticism of the Dublin Regulation, the question of joint responsibility and a more even distribution of asylum seekers was not reopened in this phase. This thesis asks why the Greek situation did not prompt Member States to assume greater shared responsibility. It addresses this through a case study of how Danish media portrayed the situation in Greece. Methodologically, it combines Norman Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis—which examines how language shapes public debate and power relations—with framing theory, which looks at how issues are presented in ways that guide interpretation. The study identifies three dominant discourses in the media: a Sympathy discourse, a Border Control discourse, and a Solidarity discourse. Drawing on Jef Huysmans’ theory, the analysis points to three underlying principles: downplaying asylum seekers’ reasons for fleeing, maintaining an inward national focus, and treating asylum primarily as a burden. An examination of CEAS policy objectives suggests that these principles also resonate in policy design. They appear to have become naturalized, shaping both media debate and policy. As a result, the European asylum debate—and the question of shared responsibility—tends to be reframed as a matter of Danish national security rather than human rights and international protection. This shifts attention away from asylum seekers themselves and their motives. These principles reduce the perceived need for joint responsibility and indicate a securitization of asylum. The Greek case did not lead to greater shared responsibility because the issue is embedded in a process of securitization that prioritizes security over responsibility-sharing measures.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents