Why have asylum seekers been constructed as a national security threat in Australia, but not in Sweden, which proportionately has a much higher rate of asylum applications than Australia? In other words, why has the securitization of asylum been unsuccessful in Sweden and yet highly successful in Australia? The case study of Sweden demonstrates how hegemonic power is used to wield stigma towards a minority party to prevent securitization. By contrast, in Australia, hegemonic power is used to wield stigma against those who challenge the securitization of asylum policy and against asylum seekers, in order to preserve securitized asylum policies.
|Qualification||Doctor of Philosophy|
|Award date||2 Nov 2017|
|Publication status||Unpublished - 2017|