Securitization and the Construction of Security

TLDR

The securitization framework has become a popular tool for studying security construction in contemporary international politics. The article critiques securitization as narrowly defined in terms of act, context, and threat, and proposes expanding the framework while acknowledging its normative limits. The study finds that securitization is limited by its narrow focus on the speech of dominant actors, the moment of intervention, and the designation of threats.

Abstract

Those interested in the construction of security in contemporary international politics have increasingly turned to the conceptual framework of `securitization'. This article argues that while an important and innovative contribution, the securitization framework is problematically narrow in three senses. First, the form of act constructing security is defined narrowly, with the focus on the speech of dominant actors. Second, the context of the act is defined narrowly, with the focus only on the moment of intervention. Finally, the framework of securitization is narrow in the sense that the nature of the act is defined solely in terms of the designation of threats. In outlining this critique, the article points to possibilities for developing the framework further as well as for the need for those applying it to recognize both limits of their claims and the normative implications of their analysis. I conclude by pointing to how the framework might fit within a research agenda concerned with the broader construction of security.