Securitization and Desecuritization

Mid-1980s observations indicated a lack of reflection on the concept of security despite its widespread use.
Subsequent years saw an increase in discourse and conceptual analysis surrounding security.
Wæver's aim: to illustrate a new perspective on security contrasted with traditional approaches.

Traditional Progressive Approach:
- Accepts security as a predefined concept; assumes security is inherently positive.
- Advocates for broadening the definition of security to include non-traditional issues (e.g., environment, welfare, immigration).
- Raises the question of whether addressing environmental issues in terms of security is beneficial.
Critique of Traditional Approaches:
- Security carries connotations of defense and state authority, which may not improve the discourse.
- Proposes to redefine security from within, rather than only expanding existing definitions.

The 1980s shift toward broadening security from state-centric to people-centric perspectives.
Challenges of Broadening Security:
- Difficulty in delineating security issues from other political concerns.
- Johan Galtung and Jan Øberg's framework: security linked to human needs (survival, development, freedom, identity).
- This framework might result in an all-encompassing and therefore diluted conception of security.

National security is the traditional focus, encompassing a range of threats beyond military issues.
Buzan's work: emphasizes the importance of national security and its interdependence with international dynamics.
The relationship between national security and individual or societal security lacks clearly defined literature.
The notion of security should remain rooted in the state's context; individual or global security remains abstract.

Expanding security concepts leads to inflating the meaning of security.
The indivisible tradition of national security suggests risks in democratizing security issues.
Framework Dynamics:
- Security is maintained through social constructs and intersubjective agreements among states.
- States utilize security discourse to legitimize actions and mobilize responses to perceived threats.
The inherent tension lies in addressing both security and insecurity within the discourse.

Wæver identifies four case studies to illustrate dynamics of securitization and desecuritization:
1. European Security (1960-1990): The Cold War context that stratified political stability through securitization.
2. Environmental Security: Examining whether framing environmental issues as security threats is effective or counterproductive.
3. Societal Security: Engagement with identity threats and societal integration challenges post-Cold War.
4. European Security After the Cold War: The evolving concept as a reaction to integration and fragmentation threats.

Securitization: The process by which issues are framed as security threats needing urgent attention.
Desecuritization: Movement away from framing issues as security concerns, focusing instead on political, cultural, or economic solutions.
Speech Act: A linguistic framework where declaring something as 'security' changes its political stance and perceived urgency.

The critical examination of security shows a need to focus on the processes through which security issues emerge and are addressed.
Effective discourse must navigate the complexities of both historical and contemporary contexts within the security field.