{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020999275887038378, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.841584158415841, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Rawlsian account of de-securitisation: securitising and de-securitising corruption in Romania

ABSTRACT The article criticises contemporary accounts of de-securitisation practices and argues that they fail to meet the standards of ideal de-securitisation, which, the article argues, can only be inspired by Rawlsian public reason. Thus, the article criticises these de-securitisations for not engaging with the fundamentals of securitising speech. Alternatively, the paper formulates a Rawlsian-inspired theory of de-securitisation, arguing that public reason-inspired practices fulfill the ambitions of the original authors of securitisation theorists much better than those identified in the previous literature. Further, the paper traces the securitisation of corruption in Romania and identifies some of the key securitising agents and securitising tools employed. It argues that corruption was securitised through the use of policy documents, public speeches and through establishing a close cooperation between the Romanian Intelligence Service and the National Anti-corruption directorate. Finally, it looks at three decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court as empirical cases of Rawlsian de-securitisation. This was chosen because, unlike in several European decisions, Romania offers a clear case where courts struck down rather than affirmed security legislation.