hreat isn’t really an “objective sense” in terms of language but the consequences of political and social interaction through discourse. This discourse includes collective identities, social values and normal which are all factors that are a piece of an intersubjective built ward. The securitisation theory has therefore broadened and deepened the views of security studies by redefining the significance and meaning of “power politics”, by doing this a security issue is characterises as existential danger thus differentiating it from “normal politics”. (McDonald, 2008) This essay will examine the strengths and weakness of the securitisation theory; some strengths being that the securitisation theory has provided a more wider perspective on security issues and weaknesses are that this theory makes narrow assumptions. These strengths and weakness will be further evaluated in the essay.

The main aim of this essay is to examine and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the securitisation theory. The Copenhagen School of International Relations will be discussed throughout this essay; they will be defining security using the traditional position on security of Realism, the Aberystwyth School (CSS) and view of the second-generation scholars. The constructivist thought on security is the strength of the securitisation theory as it provides a more extensive and deeper point of view on security issues. Security plan will therefore be considered as a conception of security that forms a threat to the military as well political financial, societal and ecological divisions. Military threat is the security that securitising actors give most importance to, military issue is above all issue. Deepening will be considered as a development of the security idea where people, social groups and humankind overall “have a legitimate claim to survival” (Buzan et al, 1998) the state is therefore considered a referent object of the securitisation process. This essay will then go onto discuss the weaknesses of the securitisation theory; narrow assumptions of epistemology undermines the role of logical factors in the development of security issues. (Stritzel and Schmittchen, 2011) Therefore to get a better understanding of the securitisation theory it will critically evaluated.
The Copenhagen School defines securitization as a process that is socially constructed, an object in society is considered important and thus deemed worth protecting; securitising actors in society decided which process or object in society is important and must be protected. Ole Wæver in his book Securitization and Desecuritization proposes a theoretical explanation of securitization. To understand the security process Wæver writes about national security and threats to it, his argument composes a threat-defence model, he formulates this models from his observation of operations conducted in the field of security. (Wæver, 1995) Weaver regarded security as a “speech act”, a person with authority can voice a situation to be a security issue and thus giving it special status and allowing measures to be taken to deal with the issue. ‘It is by labelling something a security issue that it becomes one.” (Weaver, 1995) The Copenhagen School defines securitization as “Based on a clear idea of the nature of security, securitization studies aim to gain an increasingly precise understanding of who securitizes, on what issues (threats), for whom (referent objects), why, with what results and, not least, under what conditions (what explains when securitization is successful).” (Buzan et al 1998) A successful securitization process is expediated by internal or speech act and by external or contextual factors, it’s a process between the social capital of the main person or organisation and the nature of the threat. (Buzan et al 1998) For example, refugees in the past were not considered a security threat instead was seen as a humanity issue but now they are considered a security threat; through the naming process they are considered a security issue therefore, political communities will have to respond within their community. The study of security has changed drastically since the end of the end of the Cold War. A multipolar world developed so the idea of securitization was seen in a different way, securit