This contribution analyzes the arrangements used to manage the German-speaking minority of Bolzano, Italy. Traditionally, the literature on language policies has focused on the cohesion of the state, the well-being of individuals, the protection of linguistic groups, and the maintenance of language diversity. In contrast, this case study shows that, in discussing language policies, it is necessary to consider the impact on relations among linguistic groups. I argue that language in and of itself is not an element of division; rather, I consider language as a mind-set, which becomes an issue in a specific structural context. Language policies should aim at addressing this mental status that maintains language as a divisive factor within a population. As this case study will demonstrate, Bolzano arrangements form a parting-regime, which, by keeping separate its inhabitants and impeding mixed use and contamination between majority and minority idioms, does not counter the understanding of language as an element of division; rather the arrangements reinforce the idea that language relations are competitive.

No abstract

South Tyrol has been referred to as a model to deal with ethnic diversity and resolving ethnic conflicts. This article explains the South Tyrol model’s success by blending ethnic politics with concepts from security studies: societal security and securitization. Societal security refers to threats that emerge from the fact that humans belong to communal groups that do not correspond to defined state borders. Securitization is the process by which an issue is considered as an existential threat that requires emergency measures. The article develops a framework to identify which dynamics made South Tyrol successful, analyzing factors that sparked security concerns and processes of securitization and highlighting actions and measures that tackled these dynamics. Concurrently, South Tyrol is used as an empirical case to expand our understanding of societal security and elaborate (and test) a detailed toolkit to prevent or dissolve the violent mobilization of ethnic diversity and societal security threats.

Situated at the junction between the field of ethnic politics, security studies, and migration, this paper analyses processes of (de)securitisation in Northern Ireland. The country is characterised by its violent past, consociational power-sharing institutions, experience with periods of political instability, and the recent arrival of several thousand people from other EU and non-EU countries. As a case study, Northern Ireland epitomises the problems of divided societies and the challenges posed by the presence of competing nationalisms in multinational and ever more diversifying countries. This paper applies the concept of (de)securitisation to analyse the extent to which past conflicts and tensions have been overcome; uncovering who or what is perceived as a threat, according to which terms, and how this affects majority-minority relations. To conduct the analysis, I adopt the Copenhagen School understanding of securitisation as a speech act. I use a qualitative methodology, examining (de)securitising discourses that emerged in the party programmes of the main political forces which won seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2017 and in previous elections since 1998. I look at the evolution and transformation of such discourses since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 to today, bringing to light the different security narratives that characterise Northern Ireland concerning the divisions and relationship among its communities and the broader issue of diversity.

No abstract