Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 12 items for

  • Author: Asta Maskaliūnaitė x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Asta Maskaliūnaitė

Open access

Asta Maskaliūnaitė

Open access

Asta Maskaliūnaitė

Abstract

In this article, Lithuanian discourse and institutional management of migration is assessed, using the framework of securitization of migration offered by Jef Huysmans. In Huysmans’ work, migration is securitized not only in discourse, but also in the institutional practices of both the states and, in the case of Europe, also the EU. It is not only by talking about asylum seekers as a security problem, but also by moulding it into the practice of border control and policing (treating it in the same documents and institutions as terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime) that migration becomes a security issue. In the Lithuanian case, both discourse and institutional practice leans to treat immigration and asylum as primarily security problems. In the discursive arena, however, the topics of ‘hard’ security are clearly eclipsed by economic topics and, it is argued, the economic pressures are the ones which could explain best the hostility towards refugees and reluctant compliance with the EU relocation scheme.

Open access

Asta Maskaliūnaitė

Open access

Asta Maskaliūnaitė

Open access

Asta Maskaliūnaitė

Open access

Asta Maskaliunaite

Abstract

Reviews European Military Culture and Security Governance. Soldiers, scholars and national defence universities by Tamir Libel.

Open access

Asta Maskaliūnaitė

Abstract

The paper assesses theories explaining the states’ burden-sharing decisions in an alliance and uses them to evaluate the Lithuanian decision to establish a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan. In the literature, several influences on such decision-making are identified. These fall into two broad categories of systemic and domestic factors. From the former, threat perception, alliance dependence, systemic pressures of alliance politics are analysed; and from the latter three clusters of aspects such as: state autonomy, elite consensus, space of manoeuver of the executive; bureaucratic politics and organizational interests, and third, some additional elements of strategic culture/state identity. While most factors have some explanatory value, the analysis invites the conclusion that in case of the decision to lead a PRT, the two most important elements were alliance dependence from the first cluster and strategic culture and bureaucratic politics from the second.