Analyzing the Disparity in Application of the Laws Governing Foreign Fighters: A Securitization Theory Approach

Abstract The Copenhagen School’s securitization theory provides a useful framework for analyzing how terrorism was constructed as an existential threat to international peace and security in the aftermath of 9/11. The purpose of this study is to shed light on the possible disparity in application of the laws governing foreign fighters, embodied in United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1373 (2001), UNSCR 2178 (2014), and EU Directive 541 (2017), as a result of the definitional vagueness in the legal frameworks. Specifically, we argue that the securitization of the terms “terrorism” and “foreign terrorist fighter” in these legal frameworks has created a precedent for categorically differentiating foreign fighters who traveled to the Syrian/Iraqi conflict as “terrorists,” while largely characterizing foreign fighters who traveled to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as benign “volunteers” or just “foreign fighters.” We further argue that this dichotomy not only oversimplifies the complex nature of these conflicts and the motivations of the individuals involved but fails to capture the security challenges posed by far-right extremists and other ideologically motivated fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. The findings suggest whether an act is called “terrorism” or whether a foreign fighter is perceived as a foreign terrorist fighter depends more on how powerful institutions and political actors frame and present it, rather than on any inherent qualities of the act itself. The key factor is how the individual is perceived and how the act is interpreted and understood within a society.