The securitization theory

Abstract

Securitization theory provides a powerful lens for understanding how seemingly ordinary issues can be transformed into urgent security threats, demanding extraordinary measures. This paper, focusing on the War on Terror as a case study, examines the theory's strengths and limitations in illuminating this complex phenomenon. Drawing on the Copenhagen School's framework of speech acts, securitizing moves, and desecuritization, we analyze how terrorism has been discursively constructed as an existential threat to international security, justifying exceptional measures with significant geopolitical, policy, and human rights consequences. The War on Terror exemplifies the strengths of securitization theory in demonstrating how securitized narratives can reshape political landscapes and empower governments to enact far-reaching security measures. However, the case study also exposes the theory's limitations, particularly its potential for over-securitization, the marginalization of non-state actors, and the erosion of individual liberties. Engaging with critiques from critical and feminist approaches, we explore these shortcomings and the ongoing debates surrounding the theory's adaptability to address contemporary challenges like balancing security with human rights and navigating non-state threats. The paper concludes by arguing that while securitization theory, particularly the Copenhagen School framework, requires significant adaptation to remain relevant in the 21st century, it still offers valuable insights into the construction of security threats and the dynamics of contemporary security landscapes. By acknowledging its limitations and fostering ongoing dialogue, securitization theory can retain its valuable role in guiding our understanding of complex security challenges and their consequences for individuals, states, and the international community as a whole.