Abstract After the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris, the French government reacted swiftly by declaring a state of emergency. This state of emergency remained in place for over two years before it was ended in November 2017, only after being replaced by the new anti-terror legislation. The attacks as well as the government’s reactions evoked parallels to 9/11 and its aftermath. This is a puzzling observation when taking into consideration that the Bush administration’s reactions have been criticized harshly and that the US ‘War on Terror’ (WoT) was initially considered a serious failure in France. We can assume that this adaption of the discourse and practices stems from a successful establishment of the WoT macro-securitization. By using Securitization Theory, we outline the development of this macro-securitization by comparing its current manifestation in France against the backdrop of its origins in the US after 9/11. We analysed securitizing moves in the discourses, as well as domestic and international emergency measure policies. We find extensive similarities with view of both; yet there are differing degrees of securitizing terrorism and the institutionalisation of the WoT in the two states. This suggests that the WoT narrative is still dominant internationally to frame the risk of terrorism as an existential threat, thus enabling repressive actions and the obstruction of a meaningful debate about the underlying problems causing terrorism in the first place.

中文翻译：

---

同样的（宏观）证券化？美国和法国对重大恐怖袭击的政治反应比较

摘要在2015年11月巴黎发生恐怖袭击之后，法国政府迅速宣布了紧急状态，对此作出了反应。这种紧急状态在被新的反恐法律所取代之后一直保持了两年多的时间，直到2017年11月才结束。这次袭击以及政府的反应与9/11及其后果相似。考虑到布什政府的反应遭到严厉批评，而美国的“反恐战争”（WoT）最初被认为是法国的严重失败，这是一个令人费解的观察。我们可以假设，话语和实践的这种适应源自成功地建立了WoT宏证券化。通过使用证券化理论，通过将其在法国的当前表现与9/11之后在美国的起源进行比较，我们概述了这种宏观证券化的发展。我们分析了话语中的证券化动作，以及国内外的紧急措施政策。我们发现两者都有广泛的相似之处。然而，在这两个州，恐怖主义的证券化和世界贸易组织的制度化程度不同。这表明，在世界范围内，WoT叙事仍然占据主导地位，将恐怖主义的风险描述为一种存在的威胁，因此首先可以进行压制行动，并阻止对引起恐怖主义的根本问题进行有意义的辩论。以及国内外紧急措施政策。我们发现两者都有广泛的相似之处。然而，在这两个州，恐怖主义的证券化和世界贸易组织的制度化程度不同。这表明，在世界范围内，WoT叙事仍然占据主导地位，将恐怖主义的风险描述为一种存在的威胁，因此首先可以进行压制行动，并阻止对引起恐怖主义的根本问题进行有意义的辩论。以及国内外紧急措施政策。我们发现两者都有广泛的相似之处。然而，在这两个州，恐怖主义的证券化和世界贸易组织的制度化程度不同。这表明，WoT叙事仍然在国际上占主导地位，将恐怖主义的风险描述为一种存在的威胁，因此首先可以进行压制行动，并阻止对引起恐怖主义的根本问题进行有意义的辩论。