Regulation, response and resistance: Professionals as instruments of securitisation

Abstract

Governance and risk-based regulation across the public-private divide have brought about new chains of regulation, more unclear boundaries of responsibility, and demands for new competencies and expertise. In this context, a growing range of ‘delegated’ agencies and actors are tasked with delivering ‘appropriate’ responses, including the balancing of conflicting demands and values (such as private vs. public interest). This panel features papers focusing on the practices of regulatory and other ‘delegated’ agencies tasked with handling security challenges, including challenges stemming from technological change and from crossing the civil-military divide. The papers deal with how professionals handle these new demands and to what extent the actual behaviour and responses by professionals are ‘appropriate’ or acts of resisting being instruments of securitization. The first paper by Halilovic explores the potential of EU security agencies’ staff to socialise practitioners and decision-makers to certain security standards and practices and their perceptions of what public good they pursue (e.g. security vs. liberty). The paper by Baraldi, Guilio, Moro and Sguazzini studies the screening decision process behind FDI and the securitization of international trade. The paper by Helgesson and Mörth presents an analytical framework on the role of professionals as instruments of securitization and the normative implications of crossing the civil-military divide.

Title	Details
Harmonization of internal security practices across the EU: the role of EU agencies' staff	View Paper Details
Applying FDI screening in Italy: Evidence from a new dataset	View Paper Details
Professionals as instruments of securitization: Regulation, response & resistance	View Paper Details