ICAO's securitization of civil aviation : a 1961-2020 historical analysis

Civil aviation in the contemporary context is characterized by a state of hyper-securitization. Yet, in the past, airports were public spaces epitomizing family leisure and glamorous travel. The normative framework that defined the securitization of civil aviation was developed under the aegis of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since the 1960s decade. Despite this progressive development, a comprehensive scholarly examination of ICAO’s aviation security decision-making processes has been lacking. This study addresses this gap by providing an empirical examination of ICAO’s aviation security normative development. Using decolonialism and critical constructivism, the study analyzes ICAO's aviation security normative framework development from 1961 to 2020, focusing on the historical context and agents behind policy decisions to understand why specific choices were made. This research reveals how specific aviation-related acts were framed as collective concerns by powerful actors to advance their interests through cycles of securitization. Additionally, it examines how social norms and beliefs influence state and industry behaviors within ICAO, considering both material and discursive power to analyze how norms are constituted, given meaning, and replicated within the organization. Findings suggest that ICAO’s tripartite oligarchic structure facilitated the dominance of powerful states and blocs, which utilized internal and external sources of influence and organizational legitimizing strategies to advance them. An important contribution is the identification of the significant influence of militarism in civil aviation’s securitization process. The study reveals that ICAO reflects the interests of powerful states and their industries while maintaining a façade of objectivity to enhance its legitimacy. Ultimately, it invites a re-evaluation of the foundations of aviation security within ICAO, advocating for a framework that embodies inclusivity, equity, and empirical rigor.