Security as a speech act
Wæver and Buzan treated security as a speech act. When a securitizing actor such as a political leader declares that a referent object, such as the state, an identity or the environment, faces an existential threat, and an audience accepts the claim, the issue moves from normal politics into emergency politics. Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde (1998) widened security analysis beyond the military to political, economic, societal and environmental sectors, linking to debates on comprehensive security.
Applications
Huysmans (2000) analyzed how migration in the European Union became a security issue as it was linked to crime, terrorism and welfare burdens. Pandemics, climate change and cyberspace are also frequently studied as objects of securitization. Williams (2003) noted that in a media environment dominated by television and images, securitization happens visually as well as verbally. This connects to approaches such as constructivism that treat security as socially constructed.
Critiques and developments
Balzacq (2005) argued that securitization is not a single declaration but a practice involving audiences, contexts and power relations, and Stritzel (2007) pointed to ambiguities in the speech-act model and attempted a fuller theory. McDonald (2008) criticized the framework for focusing only on threat declarations and so viewing security too narrowly. Wæver himself saw desecuritization, returning issues to normal politics, as preferable, a normative stance that is also debated.
FAQ
- What is securitization theory in simple terms?
- An issue is not a security issue by nature; it becomes one when politicians call it a threat to survival and people accept that claim.
- Why can securitization be a problem?
- Once something is defined as a security matter, emergency measures or limits on rights that would normally be unacceptable can be justified.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner. The Copenhagen School's core framework.
- Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–86). Columbia University Press. The original formulation.
- Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201. Audience and context.
- Williams, M. C. (2003). Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics. International Studies Quarterly, 47(4), 511–531. Images and media.
- Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the securitization of migration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751–777. Securitizing migration.
- Stritzel, H. (2007). Towards a theory of securitization: Copenhagen and beyond. European Journal of International Relations, 13(3), 357–383. Critique and theorization.
- McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the construction of security. European Journal of International Relations, 14(4), 563–587. Limits of the framework.