Selective Re-nationalisation: How Latvia Redraws Sovereignty Across Language, Borders and Norms

Since 2014, the European Union’s eastern member states have faced heightened geopolitical pressure, which has intensified since 2022, prompting renewed attention to the relationship between sovereignty, security, and governance. This evolution must also be understood in the broader context of shifting threat perceptions in the Baltic region, where security strategies have increasingly combined military, societal, and hybrid dimensions (Rodríguez Cobos, 2024). Latvia, a frontline state with a complex post-Soviet legacy and a significant Russian-speaking minority – approximately 37% (OSP, 2022) of its population nationally, particularly concentrated in urban centres, with Daugavpils standing out as the most Russian-speaking city in the country – offers a particularly revealing case. Recent policy developments, including restrictions on the use of the Russian language, the reinforcement of eastern border infrastructure, and the parliamentary vote to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, have triggered both domestic (Anstrate, 2025) and international (Le Monde, 2025) debate. These developments are often interpreted either as security-driven responses to regional instability or as signs of normative divergence from European liberal standards. This article argues that such interpretations are incomplete. Drawing on constructivist approaches and theories of norm contestation, it conceptualises these policies as part of a broader process of selective re-nationalisation, through which Latvia redefines the boundaries of sovereignty across distinct domains: identity, territory, and normative governance, while not following a uniform logic. 

Securitisation and Norm Contestation: An Analytical Framework

Constructivist approaches to international relations emphasise that security is not an objective condition but a socially constructed category shaped by discourse and identity (Wæver, 1995). The process of securitisation allows political actors to frame certain issues as existential threats requiring exceptional measures (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998). In parallel, the concept of norm contestation highlights that international norms are continuously interpreted and renegotiated rather than simply implemented (Wiener, 2014). Contestation can take different forms, including localisation (adaptation), rejection, or substitution of norms (Ibid).

In the European context, EU Member States are embedded in dense legal and institutional frameworks (e.g., the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). Within this environment, contestation rarely takes the form of outright rejection, but rather manifests through processes of interpretation, adaptation, and selective reinterpretation (Wiener, 2014; Radaelli, 2003). Member States do not uniformly comply with or resist European norms, but instead adopt differentiated strategies across policy domains, acting as pace-setters, foot-draggers, or fence-sitters (Börzel, 2001), particularly under conditions of heightened geopolitical pressure.

While re-nationalisation is often invoked to describe a general return to national sovereignty or resistance to European integration, such usage remains conceptually imprecise in contexts where states remain formally embedded within and committed to European normative frameworks. In the Latvian case, the policy developments examined – language reform, border reinforcement, and withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention – do not constitute a uniform rollback of European integration, nor do they reflect outright norm rejection. Rather, they point to a more differentiated dynamic.

This article, therefore, builds on these insights to conceptualise Latvia’s recent policy trajectory as a process of selective re-nationalisation, understood as a differentiated and sector-specific reassertion of state authority across multiple domains. The selective dimension is key: rather than indicating a systemic shift, re-nationalisation operates unevenly across policy areas, reflecting distinct policy logics and threat perceptions. Grounded in security concerns, this process re-politicises certain domains within national frameworks while maintaining formal alignment with broader European commitments.

Three Policies, One Mechanism: Differentiated Logics of Re-nationalisation

First, language policy reforms – particularly the transition towards Latvian-only education – are closely linked to concerns over societal cohesion and information security. Recent reforms have further restricted the use of Russian in education and civil service, including language requirements for long-term residents (OCMA, 2024–2025). From a constructivist perspective, this reflects the securitisation of language as a component of societal security: Russian is framed not merely as a communication tool but as a marker of identity associated with a geopolitical “other.” This generates tensions with European minority protection frameworks, particularly the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995), and illustrates norm contestation through restriction and reinterpretation.

Second, border reinforcement reflects a more classical security logic. The completion in 2025 of a fence along Latvia’s border with Russia, combined with enhanced surveillance, signals a strong assertion of territorial sovereignty (Ministry of the Interior, 2024). Unlike language policy, border reinforcement aligns closely with broader EU and NATO security priorities. In this domain, re-nationalisation does not involve contestation of European norms but rather their reinforcement and localisation. Latvia acts simultaneously as a national security actor and as an implementer of European border governance.

Third, Latvia’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention reflects a distinct form of contestation. After ratifying the Convention in 2023 and bringing it into force in 2024, the Latvian Parliament voted in 2025 to withdraw, marking a shift from formal alignment to active rejection. Distinct from the previous cases, this development is driven less by immediate security concerns than by normative and cultural resistance. 

This clear case of norm rejection illustrates that not all forms of re-nationalisation are security-driven. What links these three domains is therefore not a uniform policy logic, but a shared mechanism: the reassertion of national authority in areas where European norms are perceived as insufficiently aligned with domestic priorities under conditions of stress.

European Normative Frameworks under Pressure

Latvia’s policy trajectory unfolds within a dense European normative environment. As a member of the EU and the Council of Europe, it is bound by commitments related to minority protection, non-discrimination, and fundamental rights.

In the field of minority rights, the Framework Convention constitutes a key reference point. However, the Latvian case illustrates tensions between these commitments and security-driven governance. Language reforms, while not formally violating European obligations, raise questions regarding proportionality and inclusion.

Similarly, border policies test the limits of EU legal frameworks on asylum and fundamental rights. Yet, European responses have remained cautious, relying primarily on monitoring mechanisms and dialogue rather than enforcement. This reflects a broader dilemma: how to uphold normative standards without undermining the security concerns of frontline states.

Perceptions, Legitimacy and the Limits of Securitisation

The effectiveness of securitisation depends not only on political discourse but also on societal reception. In Latvia, empirical evidence suggests divergent perceptions across linguistic groups. Research indicates that segments of the Russian-speaking population perceive language reforms as exclusionary, despite high levels of attachment to the Latvian state (Lāce A., 2023).

From a constructivist perspective, such perceptions are not secondary but constitutive: they shape the legitimacy and long-term effectiveness of policy measures. When securitisation generates internal contestation, it risks undermining the resilience it seeks to reinforce.

Policy Recommendation: Towards a Security-Sensitive EU Normative Framework

The Latvian case highlights a limitation in the EU’s approach to governance under geopolitical pressure. While existing frameworks ensure compliance with fundamental rights, they provide limited support for the implementation of reforms in sensitive areas where security concerns intersect with minority protection.

The EU should therefore complement its compliance-based approach with a more operational, context-sensitive mechanism for frontline states, for instance, through a coordination platform involving EU institutions, national authorities, and the Council of Europe. Its role would be to support implementation, coordination, and feedback over time.

Such a platform would serve three main functions. First, it would provide practical guidance for managing policy transitions in different areas. In this context, one of the challenges lies in identifying a balance between strengthening proficiency in the state language and ensuring that implementation remains proportionate and non-discriminatory. Second, it would facilitate coordination between European and national actors, helping to align security-driven reforms with broader normative commitments. Third, it would introduce a feedback-based approach, allowing for the continuous assessment of implementation challenges. In the Latvian case, it could include issues related to teacher training, transitional arrangements, and the quality of education delivery. Particular attention should be paid to the design of reforms. Policies that are proportionate, inclusive, and effectively implemented are more likely to foster social cohesion while reducing their vulnerability to external instrumentalisation. By limiting perceptions of exclusion, they also reduce the credibility of narratives portraying such measures as discriminatory.

More broadly, the Latvian case shows that the legitimacy of reforms depends not only on formal compliance but on their practical effects. Addressing this dimension would allow the EU to move towards a more adaptive and proactive model of governance.

Conclusion

Latvia’s recent policy developments do not constitute a uniform departure from European norms. Rather, they reflect a process of selective re-nationalisation, understood as a differentiated reconfiguration of sovereignty across cultural, territorial, and normative domains, shaped by distinct policy logics and threat perceptions.

By examining language policy, border governance, and normative contestation, this article has shown that re-nationalisation is neither monolithic nor inherently illiberal. Instead, it emerges as a context-dependent strategy through which states renegotiate the boundaries between national authority and European commitments under conditions of geopolitical pressure.

These findings carry broader implications for European governance. They suggest that the resilience of the EU’s normative framework depends less on formal compliance than on its capacity to accommodate differentiated forms of adaptation without undermining its core principles. In this sense, frontline states such as Latvia do not stand outside the European normative order, but actively contribute to its ongoing transformation.

References 

Rodríguez Cobos, R. (2024). Evolution of Baltic Security: Analysis of Threats and Strategic Responses. UNISCI Journal, 22(66), pp.205–235. doi: https://doi.org/10.31439/unisci-218.

Official Statistics Portal of Latvia. stat.gov.lv. (n.d.). Latvian is mother tongue of 64 % of the population. [online] Available at: https://stat.gov.lv/en/statistics-themes/education/level-education/press-releases/21052-mother-tongue-and-language-used. 

Anstrate, V. (2025). Switch to education in Latvian only not very smooth. [online] Eng.lsm.lv. Available at: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/education/09.10.2025-switch-to-education-in-latvian-only-not-very-smooth.a617641/. 

Monde, L. (2025). Lettonie : les députés votent pour la sortie de la convention d’Istanbul sur la prévention des violences faites aux femmes. [online] Le Monde.fr. Available at: https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2025/10/31/la-lettonie-vote-sa-sortie-de-la-convention-d-istanbul-sur-les-violences-contre-les-femmes_6650343_3224.html.

Wæver, O. (1995) ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in Lipschutz, R. (ed.) On Security. New York: Columbia University Press. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/book/lipschutz/lipschutz13.html. 

Buzan, B., Waever, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998). Buzan, Waever and De Wilde 1998 Security – A New Framework For Analysis. www.academia.edu. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/39047709/Buzan_Waever_and_De_Wilde_1998_Security_A_New_Framework_For_Analysis. 

‌Wiener, A. (2014). A Theory of Contestation SPRINGER BRIEFS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268811098_A_Theory_of_Contestation_SPRINGER_BRIEFS_IN_POLITICAL_SCIENCE. 

Radaelli, C.M. (2003). The Europeanization of Public Policy. The Politics of Europeanization, pp.27–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252092.003.0002. 

Börzel, T. (2001). Pace Setting, Foot-Dragging and Fence-Sitting, Member States Responses to Europeanization. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5015704_Pace_Setting_Foot-Dragging_and_Fence-Sitting_Member_States_Responses_to_Europeanization. 

Latvian Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (OCMA), 2024–2025 measures. Mfa.gov.lv. (2026). Current information on the implementation of amendments to the Immigration Law. [online] Available at: https://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/article/current-information-implementation-amendments-immigration-law. 

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. doi: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=157. 

Latvian Ministry of Interior. Iem.gov.lv. (2024). Government supports the Integrated Border Management Plan 2024-2027. [online] https://www.iem.gov.lv/en/article/government-supports-integrated-border-management-plan-2024-2027. ‌

‌Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. Council of Europe (2011). https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/council-of-europe-convention-on-preventing-and-combating-violence-against-women-and-domestic-violence

Lāce, A. (2023) (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung) Russian Speakers in Latvia. https://baltic.fes.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Russian-speakers-in-Latvia.pdf.

‌