Securitisation Flashcards
Traditional vs non traditional security
Traditional focus: military threats to the state
Non traditional focus: health, environment, migration etc.
Securitisation frames non-traditional issues as existential threats
The securitisation object
- Speech act - declaring an issue as an existential threat
- Referent object - the entity being threatened (EG the planet, state)
- Audience acceptance - the public or institutions acceptance of securitisation
- Extraordinary measures - justify actions that would not be acceptable otherwise
Define securitisation
The process by which a political actor frames an issue as an existential threat to a valued referent object, thereby justifying the use of extraordinary measures beyond normal political procedures.
Application of securitisation theory
COVID19 pandemic – a global health securitisation case study
Policy responses:
- Lockdowns
- Travel restrictions
- Emergency laws justified through securitisation
What does securitisation do?
Brings urgency to issues - focus of attention and resources on the issue
Can lead to abuse of power or excessive control
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Key arguments
- What is securitisation theory?
- The role of the state, sovereignty and the security field of IRT
- Security as a speech act
- Desecuritisation - the politics of removing an issue from the security realm
- The structure and criteria of a security problem
- Application to IRT concepts and debates
- Examples from the text that illustrates IRT-relevant debates
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Argument - What is securitisation theory?
- Definition (in Wæver’s terms): Securitisation is a speech act where an issue is presented as an existential threat, allowing elites to justify the use of extraordinary measures to deal with it
- This is not just about “real” threats - It is about who gets to define something as a threat
- Security is not objective, but constructed through discourse
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Argument - The role of the state, sovereignty, and the “security field” in IRT
- Wæver insists that “security” as a concept is historically and institutionally tied to state sovereignty and defence
- Security is not a neutral word; it evokes connotations of threat, urgency, and the legitimate use of force, deeply embedded in the realist traditions of IRT
Therefore:
- Security is a socially constructed field
- It is about analysing how threats are constructed in state-centric political orders
- Wæver critiques efforts to redefine security around individuals or global collectives, arguing that such models lack analytical structure or political traction
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Argument - Security as a speech act – core theory
- Securitisation theory introduces linguistic performativity into IRT
This radically redefines power in IR:
- Power is not just coercive or institutional - it is discursive
- By framing something as a threat, state actors create a space of exception, where rules are suspended
- This deepens Realism by showing how sovereignty is performed, not just possessed
- In securitisation, the claim of threat gives elites the right to act outside normal politics:
This links to classical ideas from: - Clausewitz: war is a “test” of sovereignty
- Rousseau: war is about the survival of states, not individuals
- Hobbes: the sovereign judges what constitutes peace and threat.
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Argument - Desecuritisation – the politics of removing an issue from the security realm
- While traditional IRT sees security as a positive good, Wæver argues it can be problematic or even dangerous. Securitisation often leads to:
- Elite control
- Reduced political debate
- Repression of dissent
- Desecuritisation, therefore, becomes a normatively preferred goal
In IRT, this challenges:
- Realism: which sees security and power as inherently necessary
- Critical theory: which critiques structures but may still want to “securitise” social justice
- Wæver offers a third path: reduce security as a framework, and push issues back into normal politics (e.g., human rights, environmental change, migration)
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Argument - The structure and criteria of a “security problem”
According to securitisation theory, for something to be treated as a security issue:
- It must be framed as an existential threat
- It must justify extraordinary means
- It must be accepted by the audience (i.e. the public, other elites, institutions)
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Argument - Application to IRT concepts and debates
States and sovereignty:
- Securitisation reinforces sovereignty through discourse - it constitutes the state as a legitimate actor with the right to defend itself
- Sovereignty is not just a legal status; it is a discursive performance
Power:
- Power lies in the ability to frame an issue as a threat, not necessarily in physical force
- This expands traditional IR understandings of power to include discursive, symbolic, and institutional authority
War and Peace:
- War is a discursive structure - a challenge to sovereignty that demands a full-spectrum response
- Securitisation theory retains the Clausewitzian logic but applies it metaphorically to non-military spheres
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Argument - Examples from the text that illustrate IRT-relevant debates
Environmental Security
- Environmentalists seek securitisation for urgency and resources
- But Wæver warns this might militarise environmental policy, centralise state power, or reinforce nationalist “us vs them” framings
Societal Security
- Refers to identity-based threats, e.g. immigration, European integration.
- Problem: societies do not speak with one voice.
- Danger: securitisation may legitimise xenophobia or cultural exclusion.
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
“The concept of security…”
“…refers to the state”
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
“Security is articulated only from…”
“…a specific place, in an institutional voice, by elites.”
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
“Something is a security problem when…”
“…the elites declare it to be so”
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Strengths
- Redefining security as a political and discursive construct
- Reconceptualising sovereignty and power as performative and not just material
- Making “desecuritisation” a normative and strategic goal
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Strength - Redefining security as a political and discursive construct
- Securitisation theory shifts the focus of IRT from analysing objective threats to analysing how threats are constructed through speech acts by elites
- This represents a paradigm shift in the study of security: from “what is a threat?” to “how is something made into a threat?”
- It expands constructivist IR by showing that language has real-world effects - it can justify the suspension of normal politics
- It forces IRT to critically examine who has the authority to define international security agendas
- Realism and neorealism see threats as objective facts in an anarchic system - securitisation theory challenges this by proving that threats are not “found” but “declared.”
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Strength - Reconceptualising sovereignty and power as performative and not just material
- Securitisation theory reinterprets sovereignty and power as things that are not simply held, but performed and enacted through language
- By declaring a threat, a state affirms its right to rule, to protect, and to override normal rules
- This reveals how state sovereignty is continually reasserted through discursive practices, not just military capabilities
- It extends IRT’s understanding of power to include symbolic authority, not just material or institutional capabilities
- Realism and neorealism treat sovereignty and power as given, structural, and material - securitisation theory shows how they are socially reproduced through performance
- Marxist theory focuses on structural economic power but does not explain how states mobilise legitimacy through language
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Strength - Making “desecuritisation” a normative and strategic goal
- Securitisation theory introduces a normative stance by warning against the dangers of treating everything as a security issue
- Wæver shows how securitisation can be used to silence dissent and centralise authority
- Realism, neorealism, and liberalism assume that securitisation is necessary and desirable for peace and order
- Wæver’s theory offers a critical tool to assess when security talk becomes harmful
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Weaknesses
- Elitist Bias: Overemphasis on the Role of State and Institutional Elites
- Ambiguity around the Audience and Success Criteria
- Underspecification of Material Power and Structural Conditions
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Weakness - Elitist Bias: Overemphasis on the Role of State and Institutional Elites
- Securitisation theory heavily focuses on elite speech acts - politicians, institutional actors - at the expense of understanding how non-elite actors shape or resist security discourse
- It presents a top-down model of securitisation, giving little space to grassroots actors, social movements, or marginalised communities that may challenge security narratives
- This creates a narrow view of how power operates in IR, focusing on discursive authority rather than resistance or bottom-up norm creation
- Ignores insights from critical security studies, feminist IRT, and postcolonial theory, which emphasise subaltern voices, embodied experience, and everyday practices
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Weakness - Ambiguity around the Audience and Success Criteria
- Securitisation theory claims that a speech act is only successful if the audience accepts it - but it does not offer clear criteria for who “the audience” is, or what constitutes “acceptance.”
- The vagueness makes it difficult to operationalise or apply empirically in IR research - How do we know when an audience has accepted a securitising move? What about fragmented or passive audiences?
- This lack of clarity undermines the theory’s explanatory power, making it difficult to trace why some securitisations succeed and others fail
- Even realism provides a clear understanding of who the relevant actors are (e.g., states), whereas securitisation theory becomes underdefined at crucial analytical points
“Securitisation and Desecuritisation” - Ole Wæver
Weakness - Underspecification of Material Power and Structural Conditions
- Securitisation theory pays limited attention to material conditions, such as economic structures, military capabilities, or geopolitical constraints
- By focusing on discourse, it risks neglecting why actors securitise in the first place - what structural forces shape their incentives, opportunities, or fears
- It cannot adequately explain patterns in global security behaviour, such as arms races, imperial interventions, or strategic alliance
- It may capture how issues are framed as security threats, but not why some issues are more vulnerable to securitisation than others
- Realism and neorealism: explain securitisation as a response to anarchy, threat perception, and survival logic - structural imperatives that cannot be reduced to language
- Marxism: links security discourse to economic exploitation and capitalist accumulation, offering a materialist explanation for securitisation
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Key arguments
- What is the relationship between securitisation theory and the question of security in IRT?
- Background, narrative and intellectual origins
- Best conceptual framework: Why securitisation theory?
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Argument - What is the relationship between securitisation theory and the question of security in IRT?
- Securitisation theory, developed by the Copenhagen School (notably Wæver and Buzan), redefines security not as an objective condition (e.g., military threat) but as a speech act - a subjective, political move that seeks to elevate an issue to the realm of urgent action
- The central idea is that an issue becomes a security issue when a securitising actor (often a state) successfully frames it as an existential threat to a referent object, demanding extraordinary measures
- This challenges traditional state-centric IRT approaches, which view security as the management of material threats to state survival
- Instead, securitisation theory opens the door to understanding security as a socially constructed process
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Argument - Background, narrative, and intellectual origins
- Although rooted in constructivist thought, securitisation theory draws heavily on realist (and more precisely Schmittian) conceptions of politics
- Schmitt defines the political in terms of the friend/enemy distinction, where sovereignty is asserted through the capacity to decide in conditions of emergency
- The Copenhagen School adapts this by arguing that securitisation occurs when an actor declares an issue an existential threat, demanding emergency action and suspension of normal politics - mirroring Schmitt’s emphasis on the exception and decisionism
- Simultaneously, the theory draws from J.L. Austin and John Searle’s speech act theory: language doesn’t just describe reality - it constitutes it.
- Securitisation allows for an expansion beyond traditional military threats
- The Copenhagen School identifies five security sectors: military, political, economic, societal, and environmental
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Argument - Best conceptual framework: Why securitisation theory?
- Unlike realism, which treats security as a fixed, material condition (e.g., military capabilities, balance of power), securitisation theory treats it as a process - a political act of framing and legitimisation
- The outcome is contingent on audience acceptance and discursive power
The framework distinguishes between:
- Non-politicised: not part of public debate
- Politicised: within normal political decision-making
- Securitised: presented as an existential threat requiring emergency measures
This allows nuanced analysis of when and why states (or other actors) bypass democratic procedures in the name of urgency
- Securitisation theory reveals how states maintain sovereignty not only through coercive power, but by controlling the security narrative
- It ties to IRT concerns by showing how speech acts can reproduce or challenge political orders, reinforce state authority, or create new referent objects (like societal identity)
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
“Security must be understood…”
“…as a ‘speech-act’”
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
“Securitisation…is an…”
“…explicitly political choice and act”
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Strengths
- Security as a Constructed, Political Process - Not an Objective Condition
- Reframing Sovereignty and Power as Discursively Performed
- The Normative Insight of Desecuritisation as a Democratic Ideal
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Strength - Security as a Constructed, Political Process - Not an Objective Condition
- Securitisation theory reveals that security is not a fixed or objective reality, but a political and intersubjective process
- It shifts the focus from the existence of material threats to the discursive act of naming something as a threat
- This deepens constructivist approaches by showing how power and meaning are co-produced in global politics
- It introduces the concept of security as performative, helping scholars understand how actors create legitimacy for extraordinary actions
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Strength - Reframing Sovereignty and Power as Discursively Performed
- Shows that sovereignty and political power are not simply held - they are enacted through language
- By securitising an issue, state actors assert not only their authority but also their role as legitimate protectors, reinforcing state control
- This reinterprets classical IR themes - sovereignty, the state, political order - within a contemporary and constructivist framework
- Realism assumes power is material (military or economic); securitisation theory shows power also lies in the ability to define threats
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Strength - 3. The Normative Insight of Desecuritisation as a Democratic Ideal
- Introduces desecuritisation - the idea that moving issues out of the security realm and into normal political debate is often healthier for democracy and accountability
- It provides a normative dimension often lacking in realism or neoliberalism: a way to assess whether securitisation is justified or excessive
- It opens space for critical IR approaches, including feminist and postcolonial critiques, by questioning who is protected and who is silenced
- Realism, neorealism, and liberalism see more security as inherently good; securitisation theory warns against the dangers of over-securitisation.
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Weaknesses
- Overemphasis on Elite Discourse - Neglect of Material Structures and Non-Elite Actors
- Lack of Clarity Around Audience and Success Conditions
- Underspecification of the Role of Material Power and Strategic Interest
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Weakness - Overemphasis on Elite Discourse - Neglect of Material Structures and Non-Elite Actors
- Securitisation theory places disproportionate weight on what state or institutional elites say
- It assumes that security is constructed mainly through elite speech acts, leaving out material factors and resistance from below
- By privileging the discursive moves of elites, it ignores how material conditions shape security agendas
- It also excludes voices from civil society, marginalised groups, and non-state actors who may reinterpret securitisation
- Feminist IRT and postcolonial approaches prioritise the everyday experience of insecurity and subaltern voices, offering a more inclusive view
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Weakness - Lack of Clarity Around Audience and Success Conditions
- Securitisation theory relies on audience acceptance for a speech act to be successful, but offers vague criteria for who the audience is and how their “acceptance” is measured. This makes the theory difficult to apply empirically
- It undermines the predictive power of the theory: we cannot clearly assess why some securitisations succeed while others fail
- In an era of fragmented publics and globalised media, the idea of a singular “audience” is analytically weak
“Words, Images, Enemies: Securitisation and International Politics” - Michael C. Williams
Weakness - Underspecification of the Role of Material Power and Strategic Interest
- Securitisation theory tends to downplay material forces, such as military capacity or economic coercion in explaining why issues become securitised
- It focuses on how threats are framed, but often neglects why they are securitised in the first place
- This limits the ability to explain strategic patterns in global politics, such as arms build-ups or security alliances
