Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract The 2015 migration crisis is considered a turning point in European Union policymaking, marking a period during which migration gradually shifted from a purely humanitarian issue to a matter with significant security implications. Within this context, the migration of Afghan citizens, intensified by the continued instability and collapse of political order in Afghanistan, stood at the center of these discursive transformations. Adopting a critical analytical approach and drawing on the securitization theory of the Copenhagen School alongside Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of discourse analysis, this study examines the representation of Afghan migration in the political and media discourse of the European Union between 2015 and 2025. The main research question addresses how Afghan migration has been represented in EU political and media discourse and what role these representations have played in shaping the Union’s migration policies. The findings indicate that the dominant narrative has primarily framed Afghan migration through terms such as “threat,” “border pressure,” and “irregular crossing,” with institutions such as Frontex and certain mainstream media outlets playing a significant role in reinforcing this discursive framework. In contrast, liberal media and civil society organizations have sought to advance narratives emphasizing humanitarian and legal dimensions; however, these narratives have largely remained marginalized within the dominant discourse. This study demonstrates how the linkage between language and power in the European Union’s security-oriented discourse has contributed to the formation of migration policies and to the institutional and media-level consolidation of particular understandings of Afghan migration.

Abstract Introduction
Understanding and addressing social and security issues today requires a deep and fundamental theoretical analysis based on dominant paradigms. This paper focuses on the ideas of Émile Durkheim and Jacques Derrida to compare how social and security issues are viewed from modern and postmodern paradigms. The main goal is to explore how social problems turn into security crises and to examine how these issues are understood, explained, and addressed within the frameworks of these two distinguished thinkers. This study also aims to offer a combined model that can be useful for current security policymaking.
Methodology
The study employs a qualitative method with a comparative and discourse analysis approach. Key concepts such as order, threat, cohesion, exclusion, and insecurity are explored through the works of Durkheim and Derrida. The analysis is structured around three steps—identifying, explaining, and addressing —to better understand the connection between social and security issues in both modern and postmodern paradigms. The main data comes from classic texts in sociology and political philosophy, analyzed conceptually.
Discussion and Results
According to Durkheim, social problems become security crises when social institutions fail to perform their roles and social cohesion weakens. Therefore, security depends on institutional order and social solidarity. His solutions focus on gradually reforming economic structures and strengthening intermediate institutions. On the other hand, Derrida sees security as a fluid, language-based, and discursive construct that is constantly reshaped through interaction with the Other and opposing categories like safe/risky. He warns that excessive securitization can lead to excluding others, structural violence, and creating more insecurity. Derrida’s method of deconstruction helps reveal contradictions within dominant discourses and exposes how exclusion and power operate in security processes. In short, Durkheim emphasizes objectivity and institution, while Derrida rethinks security in terms of meaning, difference, and accepting the Other.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that combining Durkheim’s and Derrida’s perspectives provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing security and shaping policies. Durkheim focuses on the function of social institutions and economic reform, while Derrida highlights the need to rethink closed security discourses and be open to differences and otherness. Together, their views offer policymakers a flexible, justice-oriented strategy for dealing with social and security challenges. Finally, the study stresses the importance of avoiding unnecessary securitization, accepting ontological insecurity, and building resilient social institutions to ensure sustainable security.

Abstract Securitizing theory is one of the most widely used and controversial contemporary security theories that has been used by researchers to explain various security phenomena and actions. This article seeks to apply and implement this theory in the field of neglected and less used internal security by examining a case study of securitizing social networks in the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the library-documentary research method. While acknowledging that securitizing internal issues are more difficult than external issues, the author believes that issues such as the multiplicity of decision-making actors and ambiguity in the competence of security-building actors, poor framing and proper depiction of threats, neglection or lack of attention to social context, audience diversity, inadequate policy-making and Desecuritizing are the most important factors that has challenged securitizing of social networks in the Islamic Republic of Iran.