Reference 1; Chapter 1: Security Studies: An Introduction by (Paul D.

Williams)

Defining a Field of Inquiry: Four Fundamental Questions

1. What is Security?
o Traditional View: Historically, security has been understood primarily in
military terms, focusing on state security and the protection of territorial integrity
against external threats.
o Broadened Perspectives: Modern security studies include economic stability,
environmental sustainability, human rights, and social well-being as integral
components of security. The definition of security has expanded to reflect the
complex and interdependent nature of contemporary global issues.
2. Whose Security?
o State Security: Traditional security studies prioritized the security of the state,
considering it the primary referent object.
o Human Security: Recent approaches emphasize the security of individuals and
communities, highlighting issues such as human rights, poverty, and health as
critical to overall security.
o International and Global Security: The concept of security has further
broadened to encompass regional and global dimensions, recognizing that security
challenges often transcend national borders and require collective action.
3. What is a Security Issue?
o Traditional Threats: Issues such as military aggression, nuclear proliferation,
and inter-state conflicts have been central to security studies.
o Non-Traditional Threats: The field now includes issues like terrorism, cyber
threats, climate change, and pandemics, reflecting the evolving nature of what
constitutes a security threat in the modern world.
4. How Can Security be Achieved?
o Military Means: While military capabilities remain an important aspect of
achieving security, they are no longer seen as sufficient on their own.
o Diplomacy and International Cooperation: The importance of diplomacy,
international institutions, and alliances in maintaining peace and security is
emphasized.
o Development and Governance: Sustainable development, good governance, and
the rule of law are recognized as essential components of long-term security.

Reference 2 ; SECURITY
A New Framework for Analysis
Barry Buzan Ole Wæver Jaap de Wilde
Chapter 1 of "Security: A New Framework for Analysis" by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap
de Wilde introduces the book's aim to redefine and expand the concept of security beyond
traditional military concerns. This chapter is structured to present the arguments for and against
broadening the scope of security studies, establish the conceptual framework for analysis, and
introduce the key themes of the book.
The "Wide" vs. "Narrow" Debate

The chapter begins by addressing the debate between the "narrow" traditional approach to
security, which focuses on military threats and state-centric views, and the "wide" approach that
includes non-military issues such as economic, environmental, and societal threats. The narrow
view, prevalent during the Cold War, is critiqued for being overly restrictive and not reflective of
the broader range of threats facing states and societies today.

The wide approach emerged in response to the growing recognition of these diverse threats,
driven by the economic and environmental issues that gained prominence in the 1970s and
1980s, and later, concerns about identity and transnational crime in the 1990s. Proponents of the
wide approach argue that limiting security studies to military issues neglects significant aspects
of international relations. However, critics worry that expanding the definition too broadly
dilutes the concept of security and undermines its intellectual coherence(Barry Buzan_ Ole
Wæver_…).

Defining Levels of Analysis

To structure their analysis, the authors discuss the importance of levels of analysis, which range
from the individual to the global system. These levels include:

1. Individual: The role and impact of individual actors in security issues.

2. Subunits: Groups within states or organizations, such as bureaucracies or lobbies, that
influence security decisions.
3. Units: Typically states or other cohesive entities that are primary actors in international
relations.
4. International Subsystems: Regional groups of states with distinctive interaction
patterns, such as ASEAN or the EU.
5. International Systems: The global level, encompassing all states and their interactions
(Barry Buzan_ Ole Wæver_…).

Conceptualizing Sector

The book introduces the idea of analyzing security through different sectors, each representing a
specific type of interaction:

 Military: Relationships involving force and coercion.

 Political: Authority, governance, and recognition.
 Economic: Trade, production, and finance.
 Societal: Collective identity.
 Environmental: Human interaction with the biosphere(Barry Buzan_ Ole Wæver_…).

These sectors help in categorizing and understanding the diverse security issues and facilitate a
more organized analysis.

Regional Security Complexes

The concept of security complexes is introduced to explain regional patterns of security
interdependence. A security complex is defined by a set of states whose security concerns are so
interlinked that their national security cannot be considered in isolation from one another. These
complexes highlight the importance of regional dynamics and interactions in understanding
global security.

Classical security complex theory, primarily focused on the political and military sectors, is
expanded in this book to include non-traditional sectors. This approach provides a more
comprehensive understanding of regional security and the interplay between different levels of
analysis and sectors of security(Barry Buzan_ Ole Wæver_…).

Moving Beyond Classical Security Complex Theory

The authors argue for moving beyond classical security complex theory to incorporate a wider
range of security issues and sectors. This involves recognizing the interconnectedness of various
types of security and the need for a holistic approach to analyze and address security challenges.
The expanded framework aims to provide a more accurate and relevant analysis of contemporary
security issues, reflecting the complex and multifaceted nature of threats in the modern world
(Barry Buzan_ Ole Wæver_…).

Conclusion

Chapter 1 sets the stage for the rest of the book by laying out the need for a broader and more
inclusive framework for security studies. It challenges traditional notions of security, arguing for
a conceptualization that includes various sectors and levels of analysis. This chapter highlights
the importance of considering a wide range of threats and the interactions between different
security concerns to fully understand and address the complexities of global security.

Securitization Theory: Detailed Explanation

Securitization theory, as presented in Chapter 2 of "Security: A New Framework for Analysis"

by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, is a framework for understanding how certain
issues are transformed into matters of security. This transformation involves the identification of
existential threats to referent objects and legitimizes extraordinary measures to address these
threats. Here is a detailed breakdown of securitization theory:

Securitization frames an issue as an existential threat requiring extraordinary measures, like post-9/11
counterterrorism policies that justified enhanced surveillance and military actions. Politicization brings
an issue into public debate and democratic decision-making, such as the discussions and negotiations
surrounding climate change policies.

Core Components of Securitization Theory

1. Existential Threats:
 o Definition: An existential threat is a perceived danger that threatens the survival
of a referent object.
o Referent Object: This is the entity that is considered to be under threat.
Traditionally, the state is the primary referent object, but this can include other
entities such as nations, ecosystems, or collective identities depending on the
sector (military, political, economic, societal, environmental).
2. Securitizing Actors:
o Role: These are entities (individuals, groups, institutions) that make the claim that
a particular issue is an existential threat to a referent object.
o Authority: The effectiveness of a securitizing actor depends on their authority
and legitimacy. For example, government officials, military leaders, or influential
organizations often act as securitizing actors.
3. Functional Actors:
o Role: These are entities that significantly influence security dynamics without
being referent objects or securitizing actors. They play a role in the broader
security landscape by affecting how security issues are framed and addressed.
4. Audience:
o Acceptance: The securitization process depends on the acceptance by the relevant
audience. This audience can be the general public, political elites, or specific
interest groups.
o Perception: The audience's perception of the threat and the legitimacy of the
securitizing actor are crucial for successful securitization.

The Securitization Process

1. Speech Acts:
o Performative Acts: Central to securitization is the concept of speech acts. A
securitizing actor performs a speech act by declaring something to be a security
issue. This declaration is not just a description but an action that transforms the
issue into a matter of security.
o Transformation: Through the speech act, the issue is elevated from normal
political debate to a prioritized security concern that demands immediate and
extraordinary measures.
2. Facilitating Conditions:
o Contextual Factors: Certain conditions enhance the likelihood of successful
securitization. These include:
 Nature of the Threat: Clear and immediate threats are more likely to be
securitized successfully.
 Authority of the Securitizing Actor: The credibility and legitimacy of
the actor making the security claim.
 Audience Perception: The extent to which the audience perceives the
threat as real and urgent.
3. Legitimation of Extraordinary Measures:
o Extraordinary Measures: Securitization legitimizes actions that go beyond
normal political procedures. These measures can include emergency laws,
increased surveillance, military intervention, or other significant actions.
 o Emergency Politics: By framing an issue as an existential threat, securitizing
actors justify bypassing regular political constraints to address the perceived
emergency.

Critiques and Implications of Securitization

1. Potential for Abuse:

o Manipulation: There is a risk that securitization can be used by political leaders
to manipulate public perception and justify undemocratic measures. Declaring
issues as existential threats can concentrate power and bypass checks and
balances.
2. Broadening the Security Agenda:
o Inclusivity: Securitization theory allows for the inclusion of a wider range of
issues in the security agenda. This broadening can lead to a more comprehensive
understanding of security but also risks diluting the focus on traditional security
threats.
3. Normative Concerns:
o Ethical Implications: The use of extraordinary measures raises ethical questions
about the balance between security and civil liberties. The process of
securitization needs to be critically examined to ensure that it does not undermine
democratic principles and human rights.

Securitization theory provides a robust framework for analyzing how issues become matters
of security through the declaration of existential threats by authoritative actors. This process
legitimizes extraordinary measures and transforms the political landscape. Understanding
securitization is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of contemporary security and the
implications for policy and governance.

Conclusion

 Security as a Fluid Concept: Security varies depending on the referent object, sector,
and context. Understanding security requires considering these variations and the
complex interplay of different factors.
 Importance of Securitization Theory: Provides a framework for analyzing how issues
become securitized and the implications for international relations and policy.