Concepts and context

Definitions reflect specific perspectives that can be applied to a set of circumstances, a group or groups of people or events. They help make sense of the world around us and are central to analysis, policy frameworks and practical responses, especially in the face of change and emerging problems. While there are specific definitions of migration-related terms that are technical in nature and apply to a range of contexts, including legal, administrative, research and statistical contexts,¹² for the purpose of this chapter, a migrant is defined as “a person who moves away from his or her usual residence, whether within a country or across an international border, temporarily or permanently, and for a variety of reasons”.¹³ This definition is particularly relevant to human security analysis as it encompasses all forms of migration, even the most coercive (such as human trafficking and refugee displacement), which often result in the profound insecurity of those affected.

The concept of security in international relations has for many decades been rooted in national or State security terms, primarily involving political independence and territorial integrity of nation States.¹⁴ Threats to the security of States and their populations primarily revolved around external military threats, which was particularly relevant until 1990, as can be seen in Figure 1, which shows global trend data on the number of deaths due to State-based conflicts.¹⁵ More recently, and particularly since the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, the issues of global food security and energy security are also being increasingly linked to national security discussions. As well, climate security is very high on the agenda and increasingly being discussed as a national and international security issue.¹⁶

Source: OWID, 2021.

With the end of the Cold War, the space to reconsider concepts of security in multilateralism opened up in two key ways. First, “new threats” to national security expanded beyond the military realm (see discussion in the subsection below). Second, the ability to extend beyond the traditional priorities of “peace and security” into human development through a conceptual bridge of “human security” became possible. “New dimensions of human security” became a key focus of the United Nations, allowing discussion and treatment of human development to be brought into broader dialogues of global and national security.¹⁷ This laid the groundwork for the Commission on Human Security (see text box below), leading to the Global Commission on International Migration (see Chapter 8 in this report).

In this chapter and its examination of the connections between human migration and human security, and consequent vulnerabilities that can arise, we draw upon the definition articulated at the 2012 United Nations General Assembly, which reflected the consensus that human security is considered:

" The right of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair. All individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential.¹⁸

Given this definition, the first and most obvious connection between human migration and human security is that a lack of human security can cause migration and displacement, but some forms of migration can themselves be a cause of (additional) human insecurity. In fact, human (in)security is a critical issue when examining migrants’ experiences right the way through the migration cycle: this topic is examined in the next section.

Securitization of migration: A brief summary

The security risks posed by migration have long been acknowledged by leaders, as societies have sought to protect themselves from threats, while at the same time seeking increased prosperity through trade, finance and cultural exchange underpinned by migration.¹⁹ Today, it is clear that migration directly affects some of the defining elements of a State, that is, a permanent population and a defined territory.²⁰ The regulation of migration (entry and stay) is therefore considered a prerogative of sovereign States, supplemented by international cooperation on migration governance.²¹ As States’ capacities and appetites for wider and more comprehensive regulation increased following the Second World War – including in previously unregulated spheres, such as telecommunications, media and broadcasting, environmental protection and conservation and public health, among many others – the concepts of “regular” and “irregular” migration from a State perspective emerged.²² The first sustained analysis focused on irregular labour migration,²³ due to political and geopolitical change following the oil crisis in the early 1970s and the related contractions of national economies in Europe and elsewhere.²⁴ However, irregular migration was initially conceptualized in a completely different way (see text box below).

Importantly, human security and insecurity as it relates to migration emerged in the modern era of nation States after the Second World War. In this context, the primary focus was refugees, as articulated in the 1951 Refugee Convention. As an important component of international human rights law – together with customary international law concerning the principle of non-refoulement and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights²⁵ – the Refugee Convention and related Protocol of 1967 reflect recognition by the international community of the need, as part of the multilateral system of States, to safeguard human security from threats caused by displacement. That said, there is widespread recognition that the focus on upholding human security in migration and displacement has diminished, especially since the 1990s.²⁶ The protection of migrants (including refugees), therefore, remains a highly salient issue, related to both humanitarian and development aspects, as discussed in the next section.

At around this time, in the mid-1990s, a school of academic thought – the Copenhagen School – conceptualized “securitization” as the characterization of danger and threats of a particular kind, via a “speech act” that moved security from the military realm to other realms, such as international migration.²⁷ The process of securitization has been described as using threat language when describing an issue to enable “justifying the adoption of extraordinary measures”.²⁸ The end of the Cold War in particular, and the related demise of a powerful external threat to the security of the West, enabled the emergence of threats, or perceived threats, that involved non-State actors. This had implications for a range of global and international issues, particularly issues that it was increasingly difficult for States to regulate and that involved actors operating largely beyond the reach of States’ control, such as terrorism, human trafficking, migrant smuggling and irregular migration. Migration increasingly became not only an issue of socioeconomic management for States, but also of national security. Further, one of the effects of the events of 9/11 was that it reinforced the trend towards securitizing migration, which directly resulted in increased migration control, significant investment in border intelligence systems and substantial institutional responses, most notably in the United States, but more generally throughout the Western world.²⁹

These developments are also intertwined with changes in political systems and media coverage. There is widespread recognition that the “toxicity” of the migration debate has further intensified over the last few years, with a politics of fear and division increasingly framing discussions.³⁰ Disruption and disinformation are increasingly deployed as part of tactical pursuits of power around the world, with negative impacts on public, political and social media discourse on migration, displacement and migrants (including refugees), and ultimately on societal values and democratic systems.³¹ A recent report on human security by the United Nations highlights that a growing paradox has emerged in which people around the world have been, on average, living healthier, wealthier and better lives for longer than ever, but also have been feeling less secure. An estimated six out of every seven people across the world already felt insecure in the years leading up to COVID-19, with the pandemic further intensifying this feeling globally.³²