Copenhagen School's Views on Securitization

Paper Summary:

This essay critically evaluates the Copenhagen School's views on the securitization of issues. The author recognizes the difference between Ole Waever's opinion -- which sees securitization as all too negative -- and Jap de Wilde's -- which can see its positive impact. While not quite persuaded by the adverse impact of securitization, she acknowledges the advantage of desecuritizing some cases. Cases used as examples are the South China Sea conflict and the ASEAN forest fires.

From the Paper:

"Security problems, defined by Waever, are developments that threaten the sovereignty or independence of a state in a particularly rapid or dramatic fashion, and deprive it of the capacity to manage by itself. Seeing security in a traditional way, Waever asserts that the dire impacts caused by these kinds of developments then justify the state to take any action that is beyond the normal political practice of the concerned state. The state can claim a special right to mobilize maximum effort to protect its sovereignty. This view on who is the actor and what is the referent object then undergoes a slight shift in the 1998 work in which the society and its identity also becomes the other important referent object."

More papers on Copenhagen School's Views on Securitization:

• Essay # 25086 : "Copenhagen School's (De)Securitization"
• Book Review # 33333 : "A Primer on Securitization"."
• Essay # 29377 : "Views on Justice"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: