In the grand courtroom of national defence, mass media doesn’t just report the verdict – it plays judge, jury, and executioner of what constitutes a real security threat. And yet, in the expansive field of security and defence studies, while scholars dissect nuclear deterrence, technological threats, and the erosion of democracy, a critical component often remains overshadowed – the role of mass media. This blog post proposes a new perspective, one that asserts that no analysis of international (or European) security is complete without considering how mass media shapes and sometimes skews our perceptions of international legal realities. The current upheaval of European security, as evidenced by the contributions to this symposium, further reinforces the idea that an understanding of mass media’s interplay with securitization is key to analyse the impact of public opinion on international law.
Words of Mass Instruction: Media & Law
Readers familiar with this argument may recall previous demonstrations of this process: Mass media, encompassing mainstream press, radio, and the 24-hour news cycle, hold a near-monopoly on the communication of international law to the general public. This is argued in light of the ‘abstract’ nature of international law, which, unlike domestic law, is rarely encountered by the general public in their daily lives, effectively resulting in a communicative gap, often filled only by the media.
As such, beyond simple reporting on the law or legal events generally, the media commands the ability to determine who and what is a security threat. This same discursive monopoly empowers mass media with the power to normalize, format, and shape how international law is understood by the public. In other words, however the media chooses to present international law will shape public understanding of which are our most prized international legal principles, and which actions or parties represent the greatest threats to the violation of these principles.
These observations may appear uncontroversial in the humanities, where recognition of media language and communication as levers of power is commonplace, but discourse has seldom been the object of serious scientific inquiry through the prism of international law and security. Still, readers accustomed to the consumption of diverse news sources will recognize familiar illustrations of this phenomenon from their daily feed: where terms like ‘occupied territories’ morph into ‘administrated’ areas, ‘ethnic displacement’ becomes ‘evictions’. Anodyne though they may seem, euphemisms and sanitizations are ubiquitous: ‘settlements’ are ‘neighbourhoods’, ‘assassinations’ become ‘targeted killing’, and ‘children’ morph into ‘young men of ten’.
Deliberately or unintentionally, the media promotes certain interpretations of international law, and these portrayals normalize specific understandings of international law for the public, potentially justifying violations or, inversely, championing rights. To put it in James Lorimer’s simpler terms: ‘the binding force of International Law depends on public sentiment and public opinion, as articulated by the press’. Before volunteering some illustrations of this argument, however, a few moments may be spared to elucidate the concept of media framing, which underpins the entire process.
The Power of Media Framing
Agenda-setting and framing are not mere buzzwords in media studies. They are powerful tools that respectively dictate how what information is presented, and which aspects are emphasized in media coverage. Such techniques can profoundly influence public understanding and reaction to global events, ultimately shaping the discourse and swaying policy at the highest levels.
This process is crucial in the context of international security, where media’s framing of a threat can profoundly impact public opinion. This influence extends to challenging and sometimes reshaping legal qualifications. For instance, framing can dictate whether a situation is perceived as a humanitarian crisis or a security threat, each leading to potentially vastly different responses and legal implications.
Emphasizing the role of legal discourse – or its conspicuous absence – adds another layer to this complex interplay between media and law. Media outlets have the option to employ legal terminology to describe events on the ground, choosing which incidents are framed within legal contexts and which are not. To illustrate, consider how different framings could influence the perception of legality: did the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict lead to a ‘demographic exodus of Armenians’, or was it a calculated campaign of ethnic displacement and cleansing? Alternatively, did Coalition forces conduct an operation in 2003’s Iraq, or did they invade and commit a crime of aggression? If so, would this action count as a violation of territorial integrity, or could it be justified under the auspices of the anticipatory self-defence doctrine?
By examining how these frames are constructed and their impacts assessed, we gain a clearer understanding of the dynamic interactions between media, public perceptions of legality, and policy decisions. This scrutiny is crucial at every stage of an event, from identifying who is the enemy or aggressor, to defining the nature of the event – be it a crime, a just war, or self-defence. This appraisal of the role of mass media in framing security threats and legal events may be conducted through quantitative content analysis, whereby the examination of the media’s discourse reveals prevailing trends in the language employed. The goal is to uncover how media narratives might favour or obscure certain legal perspectives and outcomes.
To bring these concepts to life, let us consider some compelling case studies that highlight the media’s role in both transmitting and shaping international legal discourse, as well as its selective application of legal categories. These examples will demonstrate how the media’s framing can reinforce the normalization of specific legal interpretations and the resultant legal actions.
Weapons of Mass Distraction in Iraq
At the risk of rousing some painful memories, conjure in your mind the infamous image of Colin Powell, serving his half-baked yellow cake theatrics at the UN Security Council, as he proclaims to the world that nuclear armageddon is mere seconds away. Setting aside the logistical impracticality and crudeness of the stunt, which has remained etched in our collective consciousnesses over 20 years later, it is difficult to deny that this iconic picture, with the accompanying media fanfare surrounding Saddam’s home-cooked weapons of mass destruction, had a dramatic impact on shaping international opinion during a peak period of post-Cold War security tensions. Mix in fraudulent governmental reports mediatized by the BBC and major outlets claiming that Saddam’s ICBMs are within spitting range of London and Paris, and you have a powerful concoction of fear-mongering which dominated mainstream narratives for years to come.
This narrative of imminent threat, primarily propagated by major English-speaking media, played a pivotal role in bolstering the U.S. and UK governments’ assertion that Iraq posed a grave danger. Built on unverified and later debunked intelligence, this portrayal went largely unchallenged by the media, which widely disseminated the threat narrative, leading to substantial public support for military action. This uncritical media environment is argued to have facilitated a major international conflict based on flawed premises, reshaping the norms of international law, especially concerning the use of force and pre-emptive strikes.
Even after the truth emerged, the corrective coverage never matched the initial fervour in English-speaking media. This media behaviour structured the terms of debate around familiar and legally weighted concepts: violations of chemical weapons prohibitions, anticipatory self-defence, and breaches of UN Security Council resolutions.
While this case study highlights the role of media discourse in justifying international violations, consider the following example in which legal discourse has instead been cast in the role of defending rights and principles.
Russian Invasion of Ukraine
The media coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine presents a contrasting yet equally significant example of media influence on international law and policy. Unlike the Iraq case, here, Western and mainstream international media have predominantly portrayed Ukraine as a victim of unprovoked aggression, defending democratic values against authoritarian encroachment.
The image obtained results in a striking contrast with the one of the preceding case studies. As early as March 2022, CNN and France 24 spoke of a Russian invasion, with Deutsche Welle choosing to provide quoted qualifications of the ‘war’ in legal terms: ‘a flagrant breach of international law’. Similarly, Ukrainian civilian resistance against Russian aggression was quickly painted in terms of self-defence, resistance, and sovereignty. Where the shadow of Saddam’s home-brewed WMDs once stood, lied the fiery discussions surrounding Russian war crimes and international legal accountability.
This framing has played a crucial role in shaping international legal discourse and responses. The narrative has facilitated a broad consensus supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under international law, which has been pivotal in justifying the extensive sanctions against Russia and the significant military and humanitarian support provided to Ukraine.
The media’s role in maintaining a narrative that emphasizes Ukraine’s legitimate statehood and its right to self-defence under international law showcases how media framing can uphold and reinforce international legal norms. This example underscores the potential of media to support the enforcement of international norms and influence the legal strategies employed by states in response to global crises.
Here, the content analysis reveals results divorced entirely from those obtained in Iraq: instead, questions of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-intervention are extremely explicit in the media’s legal qualification of events, while arguments justifying Russian actions under the guise of ‘anticipatory self-defence’ (as they submit) are anathema.
Mastering the Media Prism
While those two examples are rather robust in media illustrations of law, the role of mass media in framing security threats is of equal importance for the intricate web of European security and defence.
For example, reference could have equally been made to a plethora of other European cases in which legal qualification has been selective, and where discursive choices have been similarly tangible. Consider the 2015 Paris attacks which brought the framing on terrorism and led to the enactment of stringent laws across Europe aimed at enhancing surveillance and security measures, posing significant challenges to balancing security needs with human rights and data protection.
Consider alternatively the Syrian refugee crisis, which received a wide range of media portrayals across Europe, from depicting refugees as desperate victims needing protection from potential security threats, effectively influencing EU migration policies and national border control measures in profound ways and raising critical questions about adherence to international legal obligations concerning refugees, including the principles of asylum and non-refoulement.
Finally, recall the media coverage of the Brexit referendum, where British media focused heavily on themes of national security and sovereignty, framing EU immigration policies and the supranational nature of the European legal system as an existential threat to UK security. There, again, this media narrative played a decisive role in shaping public opinion and influenced the outcome of the referendum, leading to significant legal and policy shifts concerning immigration and border security.
Securing Perceptions
The narratives crafted by the media not only shape public perceptions but also significantly influence the presence and understandings of international legal norms in the public sphere. What these few paragraphs have aspired to demonstrate is that mere vigilance in media consumption is insufficient. As scholars and policymakers, it is crucial that we actively engage with and dissect media narratives. Incorporating this analysis into our discussions on security will illuminate the processes through which threats are perceived, identified, and qualified in public discourse, enabling more informed and nuanced analysis of law and policy.
