Rhetorical contestation and the mediterranean migration crisis, 2013-2018

• Main Author: He, Wendy Qingli
• Other Authors: -
• Format: Thesis-Master by Coursework
• Language: English
• Published: Nanyang Technological University 2020
• Subjects: Social sciences::Political science
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/137925
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

In responding to the Mediterranean migration crisis, scholars have argued that the European Union (EU) has failed to promote the human rights of migrants. Instead, the EU migration policy has become more securitized, aimed at limiting the influx of migrants and refugees. I seek to shed new light on this policy outcome by exploring the dynamics of rhetorical contestation taking place in the context of the Mediterranean migration crisis over the course of five years (2013 to 2018). Specifically, I analyse the criticisms which were directed at the EU by a non-governmental organisation, Amnesty International (AI) and its use of ‘naming and shaming’ against the EU and Italy, a key frontline member state embroiled in the crisis. I argue that AI’s ‘naming and shaming’ was largely unsuccessful due to the ambiguous nature of the international human rights law (IHRL) frame employed by AI. I contend that AI was ineffective in its rhetoric coercion because the EU and Italy were able to exploit the ambiguity of the IHRL frame and reframe the migration crisis as a security issue. In addition, I argue that the securitization of the migration crisis is perpetuated by the EU and Italy’s use of complicity to construct a political narrative that blurs the lines of responsibility and culpability. By ascribing complicity to others using highly politicized rhetoric, the EU and Italy complicate the narrative of the migration crisis, making it more challenging to attribute responsibility to any one party. Instead of implementing a common approach to migration, the use of complicity allows EU member states such as Italy to evade responsibility, focusing instead on a nationally orientated migration policy of securing their borders. In the end, the outcome of a highly securitized narrative of migration in Europe reveals that the EU and Italy have emerged as the ‘victors’ in this rhetorical contestation, serving as a cautionary tale to those who overestimate the impact of NGOs’ ‘naming and shaming’ on states’ behaviour and actions.