Reacting to Complex Threats – the Securitization in the Speeches of Anders Fogh Rasmussen based on NATO´s New Strategic Concept

The purpose of this master´s thesis is to analyze how NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is trying to justify the existence of the military alliance through the use of security arguments. I am puzzled by the question: why does NATO still exist – what is NATO’s raison d'être. The New Strategic Concept (2010) forms the base for his argumentation. This thesis focuses on the security argumentation of NATO which is examined by analyzing the speeches the Secretary General. The theoretical framework of this study is based on constructivist approach to international security examining the linguistic process of securitization. Issues become securitized after Anders Fogh Rasmussen names them as threats. This thesis focuses on the securitization process relating to NATO and analyses what issues Rasmussen raises to the security agenda. Research data consists of the speeches by Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They are analyzed through J.L. Austin’s speech act taxonomy and Chaïm Perelman’s argumentation theories. The thesis will concentrate on the formulation and articulation of these threats which are considered and coined as “new threats” in contemporary international relations. I am conducting this research through the use of securitization theory. This study illustrates that the threats are constructed by NATO’s member-states in unison, but the resolutions are sounded through Rasmussen’s official speeches and transcripts. . Based on the analysis it can be concluded that Rasmussen is giving reasons for the existence of NATO. This takes place by making use of speech acts and different rhetorical techniques. The results of the analysis indicate that NATO remains an essential organization for the West and the rest of the world according to the Secretary General.

An Analysis of the Concept of Citizenship: Legal, Political and Social Dimensions

The thesis aims at analyzing concept of citizenship in political philosophy. The concept of citizenship is a complex one: it does not have a definitive explication, but it nevertheless is a very important category in contemporary world. Citizenship is a powerful ideal, and often the way a person is treated depends on whether he or she has the status of a citizen. Citizenship includes protection of a person’s rights both at home and abroad. It entails legal, political and social dimension: the legal status as a full member of society, the recognition of that status by fellow citizens and acting as a member of society. The thesis discusses these three dimensions. Its objective is to show how all of them, despite being insufficient in some aspects, reach something important about the concept. The main sources of the thesis are Civic Republicanism by Iseult Honohan (Routledge 2002), Republicanism by Philip Pettit (Clarendon Press 1997), and Taking Rights Seriously by Ronald Dworkin (1997). In addition, the historical part of the thesis relies mainly on the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, Quentin Skinner, James Pocock and James Tully. The writings of Will Kymlicka, John Rawls, Chantal Mouffe, and Shane Phelan are referred to in the presentation and critique of the liberal tradition of thought. Hannah Arendt and Seyla Benhabib’s analysis of Arendt’s philosophy both address the problematic relations between human rights and nation-states as the main guarantors of rights. The chapter on group rights relies on Peter Jones’ account of corporate and collective rights, after which I continue to Seumas Miller’s essay on the (liberal) account of group rights and their relation to the concept of citizenship. Republicanism and Political Theory (2002) edited by Cécile Laborde and John Maynor is also references. David Miller and Maurizio Viroli represent the more “rooted” version of republicanism. The thesis argues that the full concept of citizenship should be seen as containing legal, political and social dimensions. The concept can be viewed from all of these three angles. The first means that citizenship is connected with certain rights, like the right to vote or stand for election, the right to property and so on. In most societies, the law guarantees these rights to every citizen. Then there is also the social dimension, which can be said to be as important as the legal one: the recognition of equality and identities of others. Finally, there is the political dimension, meaning the importance of citizens’ participation in the society, which is discussed in connection with the contemporary account of republicanism. All these issues are discussed from the point of view of groups demanding for group-specific rights and equal recognition. The challenge with these three aspects of citizenship is, however, that they are difficult to discuss under one heading. Different theories or discourses of citizenship each approach the subject from different starting points, which make reconciling them sometimes hard. The fundamental questions theories try to answer may differ radically depending on the theory. Nevertheless, in order to get the whole image of what the citizenship discourses are about all the aspects deserve to be taken into account.