Browsing by Subject "securitisation"

Tämän pro gradu- tutkielman tarkoituksena on tarkastella turvapaikan turvallistamista niin sanotun ’maahanmuuttokriisin’ aikana vuonna 2015, analysoiden Helsingin Sanomien samaisen vuoden julkaisuja. Tutkielmassa keskitytään siihen, miten turvallisuusdiskursseja kehystetään yleisölle, ja mitä mahdollisia taustalla olevia logiikoita pelon synnyttämiseen liittyen voidaan tunnistaa. Aluksi tutkielmassa esitellään analyysin teoreettinen tausta, turvallistamisteoria ja diskurssiteoria, sekä aiheeseen liittyvä historiallinen ja sosiopoliittinen tausta, jotta tutkielmassa voitaisiin paremmin ymmärtää, kuinka turvallistamisdiskurssit esitettiin yleisölle. Tämän jälkeen tutkielma käsittelee turvallistamista maahanmuutto- ja turvapaikka-asioiden kontekstissa. Tutkielmassa esitellään myös median rooli turvallistamisprosessissa ja tarkastellaan, miten rasistiset ja ksenofobiset logiikat usein vaikuttavat tähän prosessiin. Kirjallisuuskatsaus Pohjoismaissa tehdyistä turvapaikan turvallistamista koskevista tutkimuksista antaa lisätaustaa turvapaikan turvallistamiselle ja esittelee, miten tutkielma osallistuu olemassa olevaan aihetta koskevaan kirjallisuuteen. Tutkielman analyysiosa esittelee tammi-joulukuun 2015 välisenä aikana Helsingin Sanomissa julkaistujen artikkelien analyysin havaintoja. Näitä käsitellään erillisessä keskustelukappaleessa, joka pyrkii vastaamaan johdantoluvussa esitettyihin keskeisiin tutkimuskysymyksiin. Analyysin tulokset osoittivat, että tiedotusvälineet osallistuvat turvallistamisprosessiin tuottamalla ja toistamalla uhkaa ja pelkoa aiheuttavia diskursseja, usein ilman empiiristä tietoa, ja jättämällä huomiotta turvapaikanhakijoiden kokemukset. Analyysi päättelee, että seitsemän toisiinsa kietoutuvaa diskurssia vaikutti pelon ja toiseuttamisen luontiin HS:n artikkeleissa, ja nämä olivat juurtuneet rasistiseen ja ksenofobiseen logiikkaan.

In the wake of the financial crisis, the securitisation markets collapsed and securitisation fell into disrepute in both Europe and the United States. Securitisation was considered to be one of the root causes of the crisis and it subsequently came under intense regulatory scrutiny. By the mid-2010s, however, central banks and industry associations started promoting the revival of the European securitisation market. In September 2015, the European Commission set forth a proposal for a new EU securitisation regulation, with the intention to restart a sustainable European securitisation market. Subsequently, in December 2017, a two-part legislative package on securitisation was adopted following the Commission’s proposal. The first part of the package introduced a new EU securitisation regulation (“Securitisation Regulation”, Regulation (EU) 2017/2402), which established a general framework for all securitisations and a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised (“STS”) securitisations. The second part of the legislative package, which was adopted as a separate regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/2401), amended the prudential requirements for banks and investment firms investing in securitisation positions set in the EU Capital Requirements Regulation. This thesis critically examines the general obligations imposed on parties involved in long-term securitisation transactions under the Securitisation Regulation and the novel requirements for simple, transparent and standardised securitisations. The analysis of the Securitisation Regulation’s provisions indicates that both the general obligations and the STS requirements are extremely detailed and prescriptive. Consequently, the Securitisation Regulation has substantially increased the overall regulatory and administrative burden on securitising entities and institutional investors. This study provides evidence that thus far the regulatory reform has not succeeded in its objective of reviving a sustainable European securitisation market. Based on a normative analysis of the Securitisation Regulation’s provisions, this thesis identifies several regulatory obstacles that currently hold back the resurrection of the securitisation market. This thesis concludes that a number of improvements should be made to the current regulatory framework in order to incentivise market participants to issue and invest in securitisations. In light of the historical credit performance of European long-term securitisations, the proposed changes could be implemented without compromising investor protection.

There is a general tendency of perceiving religion as a problem in Europe. This perception is rooted in a secular European self-image which is historically defined in its opposition to Islam. The discourse on Islam thus has been Othering, drawing on danger or fear, calling for interventions or discipline on part of the state, to contain the perceived threat. Historically, Austria seems to have been partly outside this discourse, as it followed a friendly line towards different religions and denominations during the times of the pluralist and pluri-confessional Habsburg Empire. In 1912 the Islam Act was passed, officially recognising Islam as a religion in the empire and governing the relations between Muslim communities and the Austrian state for over 100 years. When the Islam Act was amended in 2015, it sparked a controversy, as many Muslims felt put under general suspicion. This thesis investigates the amended Islam Act through the lens of securitisation theory by applying a discourse historical approach (DHA) to the law text as well as to the relating Parliamentary discussions. A detailed analysis of the law texts identifies why redundancies and special insertions function as securitisation mechanisms, while the Members of Parliament’s reproduce the secular self-image vis á vis Muslim subjectivities. The application of the “two faces of faith” narrative (see Hurd, 2015) is utilised as discursive strategy justifying securitisation. While the Members of the Parliament say that it must not be a contradiction to be Austrian and Muslim, the regime of truth their discourse reproduces and is situated in, says differently.