The Securitization Theory: Framework, Evolution and Reflection

This review examines the framework, evolution and major debates of securitization theory in contemporary security studies. It revisits the Copenhagen School’s formulation of securitization as a process through which issues are constructed as existential threats and legitimized through audience acceptance. The review then discusses subsequent revisions, particularly the Paris School’s emphasis on field, expertise, and institutional settings, highlighting a broader shift from discourse to practice in securitization research. It further identifies several unresolved questions concerning the assessment of securitizing moves, the role of actors’ interests, and the relationship between institutions and security practices. By tracing these foundational literature, the review reflects on the conceptual boundaries of securitization theory and identifies key challenges for its further development.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Studies of Development and Population
Published
2026-05-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64577/e1151008ssdp
Primary Topic
Global Security and Public Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Securitization Theory: Framework, Evolution and Reflection

Shengcong Wang
Social Studies of Development and Population
Global Security and Public Health
article

The Securitization Theory: Framework, Evolution and Reflection

Shengcong Wang
article en

Abstract

This review examines the framework, evolution and major debates of securitization theory in contemporary security studies. It revisits the Copenhagen School’s formulation of securitization as a process through which issues are constructed as existential threats and legitimized through audience acceptance. The review then discusses subsequent revisions, particularly the Paris School’s emphasis on field, expertise, and institutional settings, highlighting a broader shift from discourse to practice in securitization research. It further identifies several unresolved questions concerning the assessment of securitizing moves, the role of actors’ interests, and the relationship between institutions and security practices. By tracing these foundational literature, the review reflects on the conceptual boundaries of securitization theory and identifies key challenges for its further development.

Social Studies of Development and PopulationVol. 2(1)
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
China Scholarship Council, National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Global Security and Public Health
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.