OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023)

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE OF PIRACY IN THE HORN OF AFRICA THROUGH

THE LENS OF THE SECURITIZATION THEORY OF THE COPENHAGEN SCHOOL

ANTÓNIO GONÇALVES ALEXANDRE

amgalexandre527@hotmail.com

Research Associate at the Research and Development Centre of the

Military University Institute (Portugal).

Abstract

During the early 21st century, there was an unprecedented increase in piracy and armed

robbery in various regions of the globe, but especially in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Guinea

and Southeast Asia. The Horn of Africa in particular has seen an exponential increase in

attacks since 2007. These attacks have jeopardised security in the region’s waters and led

the United Nations Security Council to adopt six resolutions in 2008, urging the world’s nations

to participate in the common effort to contain the phenomenon. This article aims to show that

the concepts of the security theory of the Copenhagen School provide a useful tool to analyse

the phenomenon of piracy and armed robbery in the Horn of Africa. To that end, we have

conducted a brief review of some of the major works produced by that school. We will then

address some of the most relevant critics of this theory. Finally, we have analysed the

interventions of a significant group of agents involved in the securitization of contemporary

Somali piracy. The conclusions section presents the reasons that support our claim that the

security theory of the Copenhagen School can be used to study the phenomenon of maritime

piracy in the Horn of Africa.

Keywords

Copenhagen School; maritime piracy; Horn of Africa; maritime security

Resumo

Os primeiros anos do século XXI trouxeram uma escalada sem precedentes de atos de

pirataria e de assalto armado em diferentes áreas geográficas, sobretudo no Oceano Índico,

no Golfo da Guiné e no Sudeste da Ásia. O Corno de África, em concreto, assistiu a um

incremento exponencial de atos desta natureza a partir de 2007, que puseram em causa a

segurança nos espaços marítimos da região e que levou o Conselho de Segurança das Nações

Unidas a adotar, ao longo de 2008, seis resoluções exortando à participação alargada das

nações no esforço comum de contenção daquele fenómeno. Pretende-se com este artigo

demonstrar que os conceitos da teoria de segurança da Escola de Copenhaga constituem uma

ferramenta de análise adequada ao fenómeno da pirataria e assalto armado na região do

Corno de África. Para tanto examinámos, de modo conciso, algumas das obras de referência

da bibliografia que constituem o repertório daquela escola. Abordámos, de seguida, ainda de

forma sucinta, alguns dos mais relevantes críticos desta teoria. Analisámos, por fim, as

intervenções de um conjunto significativo de agentes de securitização da pirataria somali

contemporânea. As conclusões apresentam as razões que sustentam o nosso posicionamento

de que a teoria de segurança da Escola de Copenhaga é passível de ser aplicada ao estudo do

fenómeno da pirataria marítima no Corno de África.

Palavras-chave

Escola de Copenhaga; pirataria marítima; Corno de África; segurança marítima

How to cite this article

Alexandre, António Gonçalves (2022). An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa

through the lens of the Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School. Janus.net, e-journal

of international relations, Vol13 N2, November 2022-April 2023. Consulted [online] in date of

last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.13.2.2

Article received on 5 August 2022, accepted for publication on 10 April 2022

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE OF PIRACY IN THE HORN OF AFRICA

THROUGH THE LENS OF THE SECURITIZATION THEORY

OF THE COPENHAGEN SCHOOL

ANTÓNIO GONÇALVES ALEXANDRE

1. Introduction

Piracy has existed for many centuries, and the increase in piracy incidents in recent years,

particularly since the last decade of the 20th century, shows that it has not been

definitively relegated to history. This wave of piracy, “will reappear elsewhere in the

future” (Konstam, 2010, p. 222), just as it resurfaced recently in different areas of the

globe that were not controlled by a strong government, or where maritime policing was

poor or inexistent, from Southeast Asia (particularly the Strait of Malacca) to the West

Coast of Africa and the Indian Ocean. In this century, and especially since 2007, the

attention has been focused on waters of the Horn of Africa.

That year, the region saw an almost exponential increase in piracy attacks, leading the

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to adopt six resolutions in 2008 alone (UNSC,

2008a), (UNSC, 2008b), (UNSC, 2008c), (UNSC, 2008d), (UNSC, 2008e) and (UNSC,

2008f), all of which urged sovereign nations and international organizations to participate

in the common effort to contain the threat, first, by sharing information between agencies

and deploying military capabilities (naval and air) to police the waters off the coast of

Somalia, and later, by using all necessary means (including the use of force) to counter

pirate attacks.

In 2008, following the UNSC resolutions, the European Union (EU) launched naval

operation Atalanta. Its mandate was: to protect the vessels chartered by World Food

Programme (WFP); to prevent, deter and repress piracy and armed robbery at sea; to

monitor fishing activities off the coast of Somalia; to support other EU missions and

international organizations with initiatives in the region, such as increasing maritime

security or capacity building (EUNAVFOR, 2008). Later, it launched European Union

Military Training Mission (EUTM) Somalia (EUTM, 2010), which provided military advice

and training to the Somali security forces, and European Union Capacity Building Mission

(EUCAP) Nestor, a civilian capacity-building operation in the Horn of Africa that aims to

increase maritime security in the region. In 2016, the mission was refocused on Somalia

and was renamed EUCAP Somalia (EUCAP, 2012).

Still in 2008, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) launched operation Allied

Provider. In 2009, it launched operation Allied Protector, and, not long after, operation

Ocean Shield, all of which are maritime security operations in the Gulf of Aden and the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

Somali Basin. Their mandate is to protect shipping routes, deter and disrupt pirate

attacks, in as wide an area as possible, in cooperation with other international

organizations with a military presence in the region (NATO, 2021).

The Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia was created in January 2009. The

group would become the point of contact of a large network that brought together and

connected hundreds of actors, from states to international organizations, industry

associations, naval missions or various initiatives to combat piracy (CGPCS, 2009).

The Djibouti Code of Conduct was signed on 29 January 2009 by the representatives of

Djibouti, Ethiopia, Yemen, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Seychelles, Somalia and

Tanzania. The document was conceived as a framework for capacity-building in the

countries of the Horn of Africa (IMO, 2009). To date, the document has been signed by

20 countries (IMO, 2022).

The publication of the first edition of Barry Buzan’s book, People, States and Fears, in

1983, opened up a new field in the study of security. In 1991, the second edition of the

book was the catalyst for further exploration of the security problem at the Centre for

Peace and Conflict Research in Copenhagen. Buzan and the centre’s collaborators

published several works on security, which were sufficiently interrelated to become

known as the collective shorthand “Copenhagen School of security studies” (Mcsweeney,

1996, p. 81).

This article discusses how the concepts of the securitization theory developed by the

Copenhagen School (CS) can be used to examine the phenomenon of piracy and armed

robbery in the waters of the Horn of Africa in the 21st century. To that end, we used a

deductive methodology to conduct a necessarily brief review of the major works of the

CS, and reviewed and summarized the main objections to this theory. Finally, we used

the theory of the CS to analyse the role of some of the main “securitizing agents” in

contemporary Somali piracy and the consequences of their actions. In the conclusions

section, we discuss how the measures and initiatives of several maritime industry

organizations and international associations and agencies contributed to securitize

Somali piracy. This shows that, despite the flaws which its critics have pointed out, the

theories of the CS can, in fact, be used to study this issue.

Following this introduction, the article is divided into three chapters and a conclusions

section. The first chapter discusses the security theory of the CS; the second addresses

the main criticisms of the school’s theoretical foundations; the third analyses the role

that some prominent securitizing agents played in curbing Somali piracy and the concrete

results of their actions. The conclusions address the fact that these agents were

instrumental in securitizing contemporary Somali piracy, which shows that the

securitization theory of the CS can be used to study this issue.

2. The Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

This chapter presents the main aspects of the theoretical construct “Securitization Theory

of the Copenhagen School” and describes how they have evolved since the end of the

Cold War.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

For much of the twentieth century, Realist and Idealist approaches dominated the

thinking on the problem of “national security”. The concept of security was secondary to

the discussion. It was usually seen as a derivative of power, in the sense that “an actor

with enough power to reach a dominating position would acquire security as a result” or

“as a consequence of peace: a lasting peace would provide security for all” (Buzan, 1983,

pp. 2-3). Unlike the vast literature on power, which not only included a substantial

amount of empirical studies, but also a well-developed conceptual and theoretical body

of work, the lack of studies on security was another sign that the concept was not fully

developed. Security was seldom addressed unless it served the political interests of

specific actors or groups, and it was only discussed in military terms. A few conceptual

works had been published on the subject of security, but there was nothing that could

be considered a coherent school of thought. However, for Barry Buzan (1983, p. 2),

security was “much more powerful … [and it deserved] elevation to equal rank with power

and peace”.

Ole Wæver, another important theorist of the CS, states that “security has an everyday

meaning”, but that the term has acquired different connotations derived from the

“international discussion of national security [and] security policy” (Wæver, 1995, p.69).

Weaver argues that, historically, security has been “the field where states threaten each

other, challenge each other’s sovereignty, try to impose their will on each other, defend

their independence, and so on”, but acknowledges that the “strong military identification

of earlier times has been diminished” (1995, p. 69). Therefore, he proposes an alternative

way of defining a wider concept of security: “to broaden the security agenda to include

threats other than military ones” (Wæver, 1995, p. 70). As he builds his theory, Wæver

(1995, p. 73) moves from “alternative security” to “security as a speech act”, stating

that “[w]ith the help of language theory, we can regard ‘security’ as a speech act” and

that using it “had the effect of raising a specific challenge to a principled level”, which

implies “that all necessary means would be used to block that challenge”. And because

this threat would be defined as “existential and a challenge to sovereignty”, the State

would not be limited in what it could do. Therefore, “a problem would become a security

problem whenever so defined by the power holders” (Wæver, 1995, p. 74).

Buzan notes that, since the end of the Cold War, the theoretical literature on security has

become particularly active. As a result of this theoretical revitalisation, the debate has

split into three distinct schools: the traditionalists, who wish to keep the focus on military

issues; those who want to extend the concept of security to sectors other than the

military; and a new school of critical studies, whose proponents want to encourage a

more questioning attitude about the framework in which security is conceptualised.

According to Buzan, while is some overlap among these schools, there is also open

disagreement. Buzan agrees with those who wish to broaden the concept and refutes the

traditionalist criticism that “widening makes the concept of security incoherent” (Buzan,

1997, p. 5).

The widespread sentiment in the mid-1990s was that the international system would

become more decentralized and regionalized in the post-Cold War. Reflecting this,

another book proposed a new framework for analysis for security studies, one which

examined the different security dynamics in five sectors: military, political, economic,

environmental and societal (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, 1998).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

But what makes a given development a security issue in international relations? The

question evokes concepts such as social security and international security because

“[u]nlike social security, which has strong links to matters of entitlement and social

justice, international security is more firmly rooted in the traditions of power politics”

(Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, 1998, p. 21). The special nature of security threats, which are

seen as existential threats, justifies the use of extraordinary (“emergency”) measures.

Security is thus used as a justification to legitimize the use of force. And what do the

terms “existential threat” and “emergency measures” mean? In practice, how can

researchers use these concepts to distinguish politicization processes from securitization

processes? An existential threat can only be understood in relation to the particular

character of the referent objects in question (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, 1998, p. 21).

These referent objects depend on the sectors. In the military sector, the referent object

is usually the state; in the political sector, it is sovereignty; in the economic sector,

referent objects are national economies and firms; in the societal sector, they are usually

large-scale collective entities; and in the environmental sector, referent objects can be

species, habitat types, the planetary climate or the biosphere (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde,

1998, pp. 22-23).

The concept of securitization is “the move that takes politics beyond the established rules

of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics”

(Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, 1998, p. 23). Therefore, securitization can be considered a

more extreme version of politicization, and any public issue falls on a spectrum that

ranges from non-politicized (the state simply does not deal with it) to politicized (the

issue is part of public policy, requiring decisions by the government and the allocation of

resources), to securitized (the issue is presented as an existential threat, requiring

emergency measures and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political

procedure) (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, 1998, pp. 23-24).

Also according to Buzan and Wæver (2003, p. 6), there are three main theoretical

perspectives on the post-Cold War international security structure: neo-realist, globalist

and regionalist.

The neorealist perspective is state-centred and is based on the argument that power is

polarised: it is either unipolar, bipolar or multipolar. The neorealist interpretation of the

post-Cold War international security structure is that there was a change in the global

power structure (the end of bipolarity), and its main concern is to identify the nature of

this change in order to understand its impact on security (Buzan & Wæver, 2003, p. 6).

The globalist perspective is generally described as the “antithesis of … neorealism’s …

understanding of international system structure” (Buzan & Wæver, 2003, p. 7).

On the other hand, the regionalist perspective argues that, in the post-Cold War world,

the regional level is the main locus of conflict and cooperation for states. This is also the

approach chosen by CS theorists (who have a more open understanding of security than

the proponents of the regionalist perspective, which is rather traditional and

military-centred) (Buzan & Wæver, 2003, p. 10).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

3. The main critics of the Theory of the Copenhagen School

This section lists some of the main critics of the CS and provides a brief summary of their

objections to the school’s theory.

In 1998, Jef Huysmans described the security studies of the CS as having emerged within

the European security landscape and acknowledged that this school defined innovative

concepts, such as securitization, societal security and regional security complex. Despite

this, Huysmans raises the question of how the CS developed the (new) security agenda

and how it was able to shift a security agenda that focused only on military relations

between states to a much broader concept that dealt with all kinds of threats “to the

existence, well-being and development of individuals, social groups, nations and

mankind” (Huysmans, 1998, p. 482). Huysmans goes on to list some characteristics of

the group, such as the fact that it brought together people who had different

interpretations of International Relations: Buzan had a “more or less neorealist”

approach, while Weaver’s was rooted in “a social constructivist perspective”. As a result,

the concepts introduced by the authors evolved in a fluid and dynamic way (Huysmans,

1998, p. 483). Another characteristic refers to the fact that the CS is a European school

of security studies. As such, it is anchored in European security dynamics. Most of its

texts describe an “internal relation between the empirical developments in the European

security problematic and its conceptual work”, and would benefit from a more universal

approach. Finally, Huysmans states that the CS “theorizes from specific European

security experiences” (Huysmans, 1998, p. 483-484).

Another critic, Thierry Balzacq, noted that the power of discourse had become an

important aspect of security analysis. Balzacq’s criticism of the CS is based on the fact

that the discursive action of security has a high degree of formality. The speech act model

is an attempt to frame securitization as a sustained strategic practice which aims to

persuade an audience that a specific development has become a threat which must be

addressed through an immediate policy (Balzacq, 2005, p. 172). Balzacq’s proposal

consists of reformulating the speech act model of securitization by “integrating strategic

purposes into the equation, [which] elevates securitization above its normative setting”

and, in the process, “ensconces it in the social context, a field of power struggles in which

securitizing actors align on a security issue to swing the audience’s support toward a

policy or course of action” (Balzacq, 2005, p. 173).

Matt McDonald argues that the securitization framework proposed by the CS theory is

problematic in three basic senses: first, the construction of security is defined narrowly

and focuses on the speech of dominant actors, which are usually political leaders (thus

excluding other forms of representation, such as images or material practices), and on

the discursive interventions of voices considered institutionally legitimate to speak on

behalf of a collective (usually a state); second, the context of the act is defined narrowly

because it focuses only on the moment of intervention (it fails to address the potential

for security which is constructed over time through a series of incremental processes and

representations); finally, “the framework of securitization is narrow”, in the sense that

“the nature of the act is defined solely in terms of the designation of threats to security”

(McDonald, 2008, p. 564). McDonald adds that this approach disregards the importance

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

of how security, as a “normative goal or expression of core values”, is understood in

specific contexts, and that it suggests that security acquires content only through

representations of danger and threat. Furthermore, this framework “encourages the

conceptualization of security policies as inherently negative and reactionary” (McDonald,

2008, p. 564).

Juha Vuori states that most literature on the practice of securitization focused on political

systems that can be considered “more or less democratic” and that this was likely due to

the school’s “Europeanness” approach, which was rooted in European politics (Vuori,

2008, pp. 65-66). Vuori adds that this is reflected in the “paradigmatic understanding”

of the theory: the practice of securitization is understood as a means of moving certain

issues beyond the democratic process of government. Therefore, “security issues are a

type of special politics” that legitimize the use of “special procedures” to address the

“necessities of survival” (Vuori, 2008, p. 66). However, this should not limit the study of

securitization to democratic political systems because, for securitization studies to

become a comprehensive field of study, they must take into account “security speech

and politics in all kinds of political systems” (Vuori, 2008, p. 66). Therefore, Vuori asks,

how does security logic work in non-democratic systems? And what does “special politics”

mean when there are no democratic processes to handle security problems? What is the

political function of security in non-democratic systems? Can we use the concept of

securitization to analyse the security policies of non-democracies? Vuori (2008, p. 66)

believes that we can, but only by introducing other categories of securitization acts,

based on illocutionary logic (in which there is an intention to accomplish a certain

communicative goal – for example, making a promise or simply warning someone about

something, asking a question, or even giving advice) and containing different types of

perlocutionary intentions (which aim to produce certain effects on the speakers’

interlocutors).

In 2010, Thierry Balzacq published another work on securitization theory. There, Balzacq

draws on the basic principle of John Austin’s theory (1962), that certain statements are

more than a description of a given reality and, as such, cannot be judged as false or true.

Instead, such statements perform a specific action, that is, they “do” things, rather than

being merely “descriptive” statements that simply report a state of affairs and, as such,

can be proven true or false (Austin, 1962). Austin’s theory is rooted in the

“language-games” envisioned by Ludwig Wittgenstein (1958), who asks us to look at how

words are used because every word has a meaning correlated with that word: it is the

object for which the word stands (Wittgenstein, 1958, p. 2). This view is part of the

“philosophy of language fold” and, according to Balzacq, it lays some of the foundations

of the CS’s approach to securitization. Balzacq (2010, p. 1) calls it the “philosophical”

view. However, other authors, some of whom are informed by social theory, speak about

securitization mainly in terms of the “practices, context and power relations that

characterize the construction of threat images”. These authors argue that, while

discursive practices are important to explain how some security problems emerge, many

“develop with little … discursive design”. This variant is called “sociological” (Balzacq,

2010, p. 1). Balzacq (2010, p. 3) argues that examining the way in which threats develop

requires both philosophical and sociological insights, provided that “statements about the

‘magical power’ of speech acts are moderated”.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

4. The intervention of securitizing agents in Somali piracy

This chapter provides a brief analysis of how some of the most relevant “securitizing

agents” intervened to curb Somali piracy in this century, and the concrete results they

achieved.

In a first phase, these “securitizing agents” were the numerous international shipping

associations that reported the circumstances in which many piracy attacks occurred,

using different types of media to disseminate their message: reports, speeches,

conference statements and press releases, especially in Western media outlets, which

allowed them to spread the message to a wider audience. Some of the most active

organizations were the ICC

and the IMB

, BIMCO

, INTERTANKO

, INTERCARGO

, the

ICS

, the ITF

and the WSC

But there were other relevant “securitizing agents”, such as the International Maritime

Organization (IMO)

, which played an important role in numerous general assemblies,

issued a remarkable set of resolutions, and consistently urged the International

Community to take the issue seriously, as it endangered not only the life of vessel crews,

but also the shipping lanes that carried about 90% of the world’s trade (IMO, 2001),

(IMO, 2006) and (IMO, 2007).

Associations and trade unions linked to people who work in the sea, or are connected to

the sea, were also relevant “securitizing agents”. One of those agents was the National

Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers of the United Kingdom

(NUMAST), who pressured the British government to intervene in the Horn of Africa by

deploying warships to protect UK-flagged commercial vessels (Bowcott, 2003).

The last “securitizing agent” is the WFP. In 2005, the organization took a firm public

stance that drew the attention of the international community when it suspended its

shipments of food aid to Somalis that needed it to survive (BBC, 2005). The programme

was restarted in 2006, after the attacks decreased, but they intensified again in early

2007, leading the WFP’s Executive Director, Josette Sheeran, to take another strong

stance, this time urging the International Community to join efforts to protect the vessels

chartered by the programme (WFP, 2007).

Thus, piracy became an “existential threat” that required “emergency measures” which

provided decision makers with a justification to act “outside the normal bounds of political

International Chamber of Commerce.

International Maritime Bureau.

Baltic and International Maritime Council.

International Association of Independent Tanker Owners.

International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners.

International Chamber of Shipping.

International Transport Workers' Federation.

World Shipping Council.

This specialized agency of the United Nations was established in 1948. It was tasked with creating a

regulatory framework for international shipping that ensured maritime safety and protected the

environment. It was the first international organization devoted exclusively to maritime issues (IMO,

2022b).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

procedure”, as described by the CS’s securitization theory (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, 1998,

pp. 23-24).

Therefore, the actions of these “securitizing agents” were the “move towards

securitization” that brought the issue of Somali piracy to its target “audiences”, which

include the citizens of the countries of origin of many seafarers, but also the flag states

of the vessels that were attacked and the countries of origin and destination of the

cargoes they transported. Other highly relevant “audiences” were the political decision-

makers of major international organizations – such as the UN, the UNSC, NATO or the

EU – and numerous countries, as it would be them that would ultimately have to

implement (alone or together) the “emergency measures” required to curb Somali piracy.

In 2008, the UNSC issued six resolutions on Somalia, under Chapter VII of the UN

Charter, which addressed the phenomenon of maritime piracy. This shows that the

organization had listened to the “rhetoric” of the “securitizing agents” and actively

searched for a solution to this “existential question”.

Another important aspect in the process of securitization is the “context” in which it

occurs. Buzan, Wæver and Wilde (1998, pp. 31-32) refer to it as “facilitating conditions”.

This concept is relevant because no “actor of securitization” holds “the power of

securitization” or can ensure, alone, that a securitization process occurs. For the authors,

what is relevant is that “securitization studies aim to gain an increasingly precise

understanding of who securitizes, on what issues (threats), for whom (referent objects),

why, with what results, and, not least, under what conditions (i.e., what explains when

securitization is successful)” (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, 1998, p. 32). In this situation, it

seems clear that the first facilitating condition was the threat to human life (the lives of

the crews of the ships attacked by pirates and the millions of Somalis who needed the

WFP’s food aid shipments to survive). However, the threat to international trade and

shipping (especially of energy) travelling through the global sea lanes that pass through

the region – which could endanger the world’s energy security – was (yet) another

facilitating condition for the move towards securitization.

The “referent subjects”, which Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka (2016) described as “the

entity that is threatening”, are the various groups of Somali pirates, who are also the

“existential threat” proposed by Buzan, Wæver and Wilde (1998).

The “referent objects” are the entities threatened by the referent subjects: the crews of

the civilian ships targeted by pirate attacks; the passengers of cruise ships; fishermen;

other people who used the sea lawfully; Somali people in need of the food aid sent by

the WFP; international shipping, especially of energy; freedom of navigation in the waters

of the Horn of Africa; and the marine environment – which could be endangered by oil

spills caused by attacks on vessels transporting oil and oil products.

It seems clear that several maritime industry associations and some important

international organizations developed a “specific rhetorical structure” which dramatized

Somali piracy and forced the International Community to take action to deal with the

problem. Somali piracy was sufficiently discussed as an “existential threat” in different

media outlets and drew the public’s attention in several countries, which legitimized the

adoption of “exceptional policies” by the “audiences” that had the power to decide, both

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

at the UNSC and in the countries and international organizations that would eventually

use the military instrument as an “emergency measure” to combat the threat.

5. Conclusion

The successful securitization of the threat of maritime piracy in the Horn of Africa was

largely due to the speech acts of several non-state actors since the early 21st century.

This disproves the theory of some critics of the CS, who argue that it focuses on the

speech of dominant actors, usually political ones, and that it excludes other forms of

representation.

Other points of criticism include the fact that securitization, as a speech act, is too narrow

and formal; that it has a fixed, permanent and immutable practice; that it is too anchored

in the European school of security studies, and; that discursive action has a high degree

of formality. Despite this, as the analysis described in the previous chapter shows, the

CS theory has a consolidated conceptual body that can be used to examine the issue of

contemporary maritime piracy in the Horn of Africa. Moreover, the type of securitization

that was implemented in the West Indian Ocean led the UNSC to issue (in only one year)

six resolutions on piracy and armed robbery in the waters of the Horn of Africa, under

Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This made the issue an international security problem that

had to be addressed by several states and regional and international organizations (a

brief list of these organizations is provided in the article’s introduction).

Another criticism of the CS’s theory of securitization is that it is only applicable to liberal

democracies (or similar political systems), and that security studies should be broad and

applicable to all political systems. These critics argue that, for the security logic to work

in non-democratic countries, it should have an illocutionary basis, but perlocutionary

intentions should be included in the act of securitization. However, these arguments are

also not applicable to the issue of maritime piracy in the Horn of Africa, as we showed in

chapter 4, where we listed several initiatives by some of the most relevant “securitizing

agents” that intervened to curb Somali piracy, which did not have either an illocutionary

basis or a perlocutory intention, despite the fact that, by all accounts, Somalia is far from

being a “more or less democratic” country.

The existential threat of Somali piracy was sufficiently discussed and amplified through

a specific rhetorical structure that required urgent action from decision makers “because

if the problem [was] not handled [immediately] it [would] be too late”. This, in turn,

provided a justification to legitimize specific measures – such as the use of the military

instrument –, which would not have been possible if the discourse had not focused on an

existential threat and a point of no return. This is precisely what happened in the region

of the Horn of Africa at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. This means that

the securitization of Somali piracy was, in fact, successful.

Moreover, despite the criticism directed at the CS, this article showed that it is possible

to examine contemporary maritime piracy in the Horn of Africa using the key concepts

of securitization theory: an existential threat (maritime piracy), securitizing agents

(maritime industry associations, maritime workers unions and international

organizations), an audience (international media groups, the citizens of different

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

countries and policy makers), the context (in which the Somali piracy securitization

process occurred), and the exceptional policies (such as the use of the military

instrument) that were defined to address the problem.

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. The William James Lectures delivered

at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Balzacq, T. (2005). The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and

Context. European Journal of International Relations, 171-201.

doi:10.1177/1354066105052960

Balzacq, T. (2010). A theory of securitization: origins, core assumptions. In T. Balzacq,

& T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization Theory. How security problems emerge and dissolve

(pp. 1-30). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203868508

Balzacq, T., Léonard, S., & Ruzicka, J. (2016). ‘Securitization’ revisited: theory and cases.

International Relations Vol. 30(4), 494-531.

BBC. (2005). Somali aid suspended after hijack. Retrieved 21 March, 2020, from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4649825.stm

Bowcott, O. (2003). Send warships to fight pirates, urges union. Retrieved 21 March,

2020, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/23/military.uk

Buzan, B. (1983). People, States & Fear. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd.

Buzan, B. (1997). Rethinking Security after the Cold War. Cooperation and Conflict, vol.

32(1), pp. 5-28. doi:10.1177/0010836797032001001

Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and Powers. The Structure of International

Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis.

London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

CGPCS. (2009). First Plenary. Communiqué. New York: The Contact Group on Piracy off

the Coast of Somalia.

EUCAP. (2012). European Union Capacity Building Mission in Somalia. Retrieved 14

November, 2020, from European Union External Action: https://www.eucap-

som.eu/fact-sheet/

EUNAVFOR. (2008). European Union Naval Force Somalia - Operation Atalanta. Retrieved

12 November, 2020, from European Union External Action: https://eunavfor.eu/mission/

EUTM. (2010). European Union Training Mission

‐

Somalia. Retrieved 12 November,

2020, from European Union External Action: https://www.eutm-somalia.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2019/08/FACTSHEET-2019_G.B.-DE-SIO.pdf

Huysmans, J. (1998). Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative Development of a

Security Studies Agenda in Europe. European Journal of International Relations 1998 4,

pp. 479-505. doi:10.1177/1354066198004004004

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

IMO. (2001). Resolution A.922(22). Code of Practice for the Investigations of the Crimes

of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships. London: International Maritime

Organization.

IMO. (2006). Resolution A.979(24)-Piracy and armed robbery against ships in waters off

the coast of Somalia. Londres.

IMO. (2007). Resolution A.1002(25)-Piracy and armed robbery against ships in waters

off the coast of Somalia.

IMO. (2009). The Djibouti Code of Conduct. Retrieved from

https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Security/Documents/DCoC%20En

glish.pdf

IMO. (2022a). The Djibouti Code of Conduct. Retrieved 20 June, 2021, from:

https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Security/Pages/Content-and-Evolution-of-the-

Djibouti-Code-of-Conduct.aspx

IMO. (2022b). IMO What it is. Retrieved from

https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/About/Documents/What%20it%20is%20Oct

%202013_Web.pdf

Konstam, A. (2010). The World Atlas of Pirates. Guilford, Connecticut: The Lyons Press.

McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the Construction of Security. European Journal

of International Relations, 563-587.

Mcsweeney, B. (1996). Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen school. Review

of International Studies, 22, pp. 81-93.

NATO. (19 December 2021). Counter-piracy operations (Archived). Retrieved from North

Atlantic Treaty Organization: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48815.htm

UNSC. (2008a). United Nations Security Council Resolution 1801 (S/RES/1801/2008).

New York: United Nations Security Council. Retrieved from United Nations.

UNSC. (2008b). United Nations Security Council Resolution 1814 (S/RES/1814/2008).

New York: United Nations Security Council.

UNSC. (2008c). United Nations Security Council Resolution 1816 (S/RES/1816/2008).

New York: United Nations Security Council.

UNSC. (2008d). United Nations Security Council Resolution 1838 (S/RES/1838/2008).

New York: United Nations Security Council.

UNSC. (2008e). United Nations Security Council Resolution 1846 (S/RES/1846/2008).

New York: United Nations Security Council.

UNSC. (2008f). United Nations Security Council Resolution 1851 (S/RES/1851/2008).

New York: United Nations Security Council.

Vuori, J. A. (2008). Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory

of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders. European Journal of

International Relations, 65-99. doi:DOI: 10.1177/1354066107087767

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 35-47

An analysis of the issue of piracy in the Horn of Africa through the lens of the

Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School

António Gonçalves Alexandre

Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritazion. In R. D. Lipschutz, On Security.

New York: Columbia University Press.

WFP. (2007). World Food Programme - Annual Report 2007. Rome: United Nations World

Food Programme. Retrieved 3 April, 2020, from World Food Programme:

https://www.wfp.org/publications/wfp-annual-report-2007

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. The English Text of the Third

Edition. Translated by G. E. M. ANSCOMBE. New York: MACMILLAN PUBLISHING CO.,

INC.