the “essential support system on which all other human enterprises depend.” (Buzan et al, 1998) Environmental securitisation is seen in a global context because the degradation of the environment means the state, audience and referent object can be interchangeable social construction. In this regard, threat to the environment include global warming, deforestation and desertification; this idea of environmental securitisation clashes with the state-centric position that military issues are the only threat for states. However, securitisation can only intercede in an issue if it is considered a threat where extraordinary powers are required for the issue to be dealt with, thus specific environmental threats are given priority by securitising actors. The issues regarding the ecosystems is not always considered a major threat due to their politicisation (Buzan et al, 1998) because of these issues are not always subject to securitisation, although some states may perceive issues regarding environmental issues as a threat but this do by a referent object in a specific social, political, linguistic structure. (Stritzel, 2007) The vague conceptualisation of the specific referent object as mentioned by the Copenhagen School – need the post-structural position created by the second generation of securitisation scholars where they stress the importance of the role the audience play along with setting the socio-political environment. (Salter, 2008)

The purpose of this essay was to assess critically the strengths and weaknesses of the securitisation theory. After discussing the concept of the securitisation theory as conceptualised by the Copenhagen School, the essay went on to discuss how the theory was developed by second generation of securitization scholars by focusing on “what conditions the social content and meaning of security produced threats.” (Balzacq, 2010) The essay then went on to discuss the stance the Aberystwyth School had on the voice of the audience and finally, the idea of environmental securitisation was discussed. It can be argued that security may not be a negative practice, which as discussed above involves the use of hard power but instead the emancipation from the “relative objectivism” affecting both traditional stance on security and the Copenhagen School work. Therefore, it can be said that the concept of security can be revised to provide a unified position on security. In regard to the securitisation of environmental degradation, environmental issues can be tackled rather than those issues being exploited politically. This essay has provided a range of strength and weaknesses to the Securitisation theory.