| Summary: | Human trafficking is a serious and growing global concern, and Southeast Asia has emerged as a particular trafficking hub. Many actors, both internationally and on a state level, have responded to this concern with securitization: in other words, they have presented human trafficking as an existential threat which should be responded to with extraordinary measures. However, successful rhetorical securitization does not always translate to policy effectiveness, and Southeast Asia’s notorious problems with human trafficking remain pressing and relatively unattended to. The clear disjuncture between rhetorical and effective securitization in the region challenges the traditional assumption within the Copenhagen School that speech acts are sufficient to securitize a given issue. Furthermore, the School’s western orientation and inattention to local contexts is problematic when applying it outside of a western context. A revised model that accepts a differentiation between rhetorical and effective securitization and distances itself from a Euro-American conception of the state is far more useful in understanding the securitization of human trafficking in the region. To demonstrate my arguments, I will investigate the cases of Thailand and Cambodia, primarily relying on archival evidence, internet sources, and official documents.
|
|---|
