Securitization (international relations)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Securitization in international relations is a concept of thought connected with the Copenhagen School, a largely constructivistic approach to international security. It is a means to specify whether a given area of interest is merely ordinarily politicized or the area is considered essential for survival. The term was coined by Ole Wæver in 1995, but seems to have become commonplace, at least within constructivistic studies of international relations.
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 essential problem. 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.
If a subject is successfully securitized, 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, the subject can be considered to be an illegitimate subject for political or academic debate.
In Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde works 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 more easy 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.
Nowdays, the liberalists argue that the securitization are becoming a security risk. Think about what is security and what is a threat. Any issue can be staged as a threat-political discoursed define threats.
