Urban Securitization in the Name of Human Rights

• In Event: Security and Citizenship in Latin America

Abstract

In May 2016, the government of Bogotá, Colombia led a large-scale security operation of a small zone called “The Bronx” in the center of Bogotá, which was the epicenter of criminal networks, homelessness, and drug use in the city. State actors framed this militarized intervention as advancing the human rights of vulnerable children and homeless citizens, despite committing rights abuses during the intervention. As I show in earlier work (Mayka 2021), framing security interventions in human-rights terms can confer considerable resources and institutional opportunities to governments—yet can also risk empowering opponents who support the defense of human rights. Why do governments strategically embrace human-rights discourses to frame urban security projects?

I contend that two factors shape whether a government can and will want to employ rights discourses. On the supply side, human rights ideas must be developed in the legal/jurisprudence framework, and must be well-known and accepted by the public, to ensure that human rights discourses confer political benefits to governments. Yet, not every government will be equally interested in invoking a rights frame, given the potential risks involved. On the demand side, rights frames will be particularly valuable for governments that find mano dura approaches closed off by legal obstacles from the courts or other institutional opponents. I develop this argument drawing on a range of sources, including a media archive of 1700 news articles, and interviews with over 100 stakeholders from the state, civil society, and affected communities.

Author

• Lindsay Rose Mayka, Colby College