User:Mbmorley/sandbox

Securitization Theory in international relations represents a break from a material, state-centric understanding of security centered on the concept of “survival” by seeking to understand "who securitizes (Securitizing actor), on what issues (threats), for whom (referent object), why, with what results, and not least, under what conditions." In this regard, Securitization Theory concerns the social construction of security through the “speech act” where, according to Balzacq, “the enunciation of security itself creates a new social order wherein ‘normal politics’ is bracketed.”

Within this framework, Securitization can be comprehended as a process where a state actor transforms an issue into an existential threat to a referent object–Buzan et al use the state, government, territory, and society as examples of referent objects. The securitized threat becomes the justification and legitimization for the mobilization of extraordinary measures by the state or securitizing actor.

A key component to the critical approach of securitization is that securitized issues do not necessarily represent issues that are essential to the objective survival of a state, but rather represent issues where an actor was successful in constructing an issue into an existential threat. In doing so, the successfully securitized threat receives disproportionate amounts of attention and resources compared to non-securitized issues that may present a greater material threat. Thus, securitization becomes an “extreme version of politicization." A common example used by theorists is how terrorism is a top priority in security discussions, even though people are much more likely to be killed by automobiles or preventable diseases than from terrorism.