Professionals as instruments of securitization: Regulation, response & resistance

Based on empirical cases including combating disinformation and preventing money-laundering and terrorism attacks, this paper develops an analytical framework on the role of professionals as instruments of securitization and the normative implications of crossing the civil-military divide. This framework further builds on the evolving strand of research that analyses the import of securitization efforts whereby a wide range of actors and professionals have been ascribed intelligence gathering, sometimes even military intelligence tasks and reporting functions, on behalf of the state to prevent crime and terrorism and mitigate societal threats. Some of this research has specifically focused on the complexity of the role of professionals charged with passing judgement on what constitutes a threat, and what does not, in processes of securitization across societal spheres (Helgesson & Mörth 2019). Here, we add to that research by probing and theorizing how decision-making as a designated actor of securitization may conflict with other judgements by the professionals in their daily work, notably with professional ethics and democratic and other values. To be sure, different professional groups may perceive a diversity of challenges in responding to new demands on intelligence tasks and reporting functions in processes of securitization crossing the civil and military divide. While professionals in the for-profit sector are used to live with risks and find ways to construct boundaries to protect their autonomy, and achieve "defendable compliance" (Ericson 2006), professionals in the public sector are embedded in regulatory hierarchical frameworks and professional norms that relates to the democratic polity’s need for accountability, impartiality, and transparency (Mörth & Pierre 2021). These different organizational and institutional frameworks are especially salient when new tasks of professionals not only cross the private and public divide but also the civil-military divide, as highlighted in our analytical framework.