CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Securitization (international relations)

transformation of a subject into a matter of state security

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJan 5, 2026
Entity authorityQ2984698 ↗
Source-derived summary

Securitization in international relations and national politics is the process of state actors transforming subjects from regular political issues into matters of "security". While the "Copenhagen School" originally focused on a logic of exception, where security is defined by crisis and the suspension of normal politics, later work, often associated with the Paris School, also recognized a logic of routine, suggesting that securitization occurs through mundane bureaucratic practices and surveillance technologies. Both logics function across material, discursive, and psychological dimensions.

Issues that become securitized do not necessarily represent issues that are essential to the objective survival of a state, but rather represent issues where someone was successful in constructing an issue into an existential problem.

Securitization theorists assert that successfully securitized subjects receive disproportionate amounts of attention and resources compared to unsuccessfully securitized subjects causing more human damage. 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. Securitization studies aims to understand "who securitizes (securitizing actor), on what issues (threats), for whom (referent object), why, with what results, and not least, under what conditions."

Origin

Within international relations, the concept is connected with the Copenhagen School and is seen as a synthesis of constructivist and classical political realism in its approach. The term was coined by Ole Wæver in 1993, but seems to have become commonplace, at least within constructivist studies of international relations.

Definition

Securitization begins with a speech act concerning a particular threat, by an authoritative national leader, institution, or party. The speech act attempts to shift the threat from normal politics into a security concern, thereby legitimating extraordinary measures to contain the threat.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Securitization (international relations)” as transformation of a subject into a matter of state security. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Securitization, international and relations.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1993—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Securitization, international and relations providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Securitization (international relations)”, the useful work is to connect “transformation of a subject into a matter of state security” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2984698. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Securitization (international relations)”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Securitization (international relations) primary sources, Securitization (international relations) archive and Securitization research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Securitization (international relations)”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Securitization (international relations)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.