Abstract
For over 20 years, there has been an ongoing debate about what is primary in the process of securitization—discourses or practices. Traditional research on securitization tends to analyze discourses and practices separately, which can be seen even in studies that attempt to combine these two approaches. In this context, the concept “discourses” refers to a wide range of public political statements, while the concept “practices” mainly refers to the strategies of security professionals. I argue that, in order to gain a better understanding of securitization processes, the research focus should be narrowed to first-order securitizing performatives and the related securitizing practices. This approach will highlight political statements that can genuinely alter social reality, bridge the gap between discourses and practices, facilitate the analysis of institutional mechanisms of securitization, and help obtain much new relevant empirical material. The potential benefits of the proposed approach are illustrated through the analysis of two cases: the Italian case and the Russian case. For the Italian case, the analysis includes declarations of states of emergency related to the exacerbation of the “nomad issue.” For the Russian case, it examines legal acts stipulating the official recognition of migrants as prone to terrorism.