Securitization (international relations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For a financial practice, see Securitization.
International relations theory
Politics portal

Securitization in international relations (Copenhagen School) describes the process of state actors transforming subjects into matters of 'security': an extreme version of politicization that enables extraordinary means to be used in the name of security.[1]

Issues that become securitized do not necessarily represent issues that are essential to the objective survival of a state, but rather represent issues where someone was successful in constructing an issue into an existential problem. Securitization studies aims to understand "who securitizes (Securitizing actor), on what issues (threats), for whom (referent object), why, with what results, and not least, under what conditions."[2]


Within international relations, the concept is connected with the Copenhagen School and is seen as a synthesis of constructivist and classical political realism in its approach.[3] The term was coined by Ole Wæver in 1995, but seems to have become commonplace, at least within constructivist studies of international relations. Many critical security scholars, especially since 9/11, have used the term 'securitization' without giving proper credit to the Copenhagen School.


Securitization is a process-oriented conception of security, which stands in contrast to materialist approaches of classical security studies. Classical approaches of security focus on the material dispositions of the threat including distribution of power, military capabilities, and polarity, whereas securitization examines how a certain issue is transformed by an actor into a matter of security. Securitization is an extreme version of politicization that enables the use of extraordinary means in the name of security. For the securitizing act to be successful, it must be accepted by the audience.

As a Process[edit]

All securitization acts involve three components:

  • A Securitizing actor/agent: an entity that makes the securitizing move/statement;
  • A Referent object: an object (or ideal) that is being threatened and needs to be protected;
  • An Audience: the target of the securitization act that needs to be persuaded and accept the issue as a security threat.

That a given subject is securitized does not necessarily mean that the subject is of objective essence for the survival of a given state, but means that someone with success has constructed something as an existential problem. However, Uriel Abulof argues that empirical studies on securitization have been "insufficiently attentive to societies engulfed in profound existential uncertainty about their own survival." Taking Israel's "demographic demon" as a case in point, Abulof suggests that such societies are immersed in "deep securitization," whereby "widespread public discourses explicitly frame threats as probable, protracted, and endangering the very existence of the nation/state."[4] Principally, anyone can succeed in constructing something as a security problem through speech acts. The ability to effectively securitize a given subject is, however, highly dependent on both the status of a given actor, and on whether similar issues are generally perceived to be security threats.

Effects on Society[edit]

Securitization theorists assert that successfully securitizatized subjects receive disproportionate amount of attention and resources compared to unsuccessfully securitized subjects causing more real human damage:

"... traffic incidents cause on average 150,000 fatalities a year in 56 states ... people tend to accept this as a mere fact and do not securitize this by demanding extraordinary measures. It is dealt with as a concern for ordinary politics and legal regulations. There is a tendency to individualize the casualties ... Terrorist attacks caused in the years 1994 to 2004 worldwide average 5,312 fatalities per year. That is less than 5% of the numbers of persons killed annually in traffic accidents in UNECE countries alone. Nevertheless, it is a top priority in security discourses. " [5]

If a subject is successfully securitized, then it is possible to legitimize extraordinary means to solve a perceived problem. This could include declaring a state of emergency or martial law, mobilizing the military or attacking another country. Furthermore, if something is successfully labelled as a security problem, then the subject can be considered to be an illegitimate subject for political or academic debate.

Sectors affected by Securitization[edit]

In Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde work with five political sectors in which a securitization could take place:

  • Military
  • Political
  • Economic
  • Society
  • Environment

However, a securitization could easily involve more than one of these sectors. In the case of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, one could say that the conflict was securitized militarily; weapons of mass destruction was one reason for the invasion. However, the war was also securitized as a societal problem; human rights in Saddam's Iraq was mentioned in the public rationale. Another less obvious example would be the immigration debate in the United States. Concerns of terrorist infiltration are regularly cited as grounds for the tight control of borders. Because it is easier to securitize an issue following September 11, this concern for safety and security has taken attention away from the economic factors that have always been at play in international migration.


  1. ^ Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), p. 25.
  2. ^ Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), p. 32
  3. ^ Michael C. Williams, Words, Images, Enemies, Securitization and International Politics, International Studies Quarterly 2003(47):512.
  4. ^ Uriel Abulof (2014). "Deep Securitization and Israel's 'Demographic Demon'," International Political Sociology 8(4):396
  5. ^ Andrej Zwitter & Jaap de Wilde "Prismatic Security Expanding the Copenhagen School to the Local Level", Department of International Relations and International Organization (IRIO), University of Groningen,

External links[edit]