has widened because of these distinct sectors leading to the shift of focus from “power politics” to the politicisation of security issues. (Carr, 1939) This has been criticised due to it being unsystematic as the persistent focus is on securitising actors as political elites rather on securitising power of images and material practices, also the procedure of which the audience approves the move by securitising actors. (McDonald, 2008) Securitisation therefore becomes a self-referential practice where the role of the audience works only in a way that constructs a process that has been fixed in the social sphere. An example is that the securitisation theory has unsuccessfully been applied to Western liberal democracy; adopting the ‘dualistic constructivism’ of the Copenhagen School leads to lack of attention to the social construction of actors, audiences and the system itself. (Huysmans, 1998) therefore, it is crucial that the social environment has to be developed over time to ensure that certain contextual factors are shaped effectively so that it will have a positive impact on the definition of security.

Another weakness of the securitisation theory, is they fail to consider external factors. Second generation scholars stress the lack of focus on external context of securitisation such as gender, institutional setting, cultural or regional environment. (Wilkinson, 2011) For example during the Cold War, Nato and EU come together effectively to support one another during time of war. All the international actors get together, ignoring cultural and national differences each country have to face the threat. The end of the Cold War results in the tensions between these countries rising again, so these international actors worked alongside each other to face the common threat and to work together for national security culture. Due to the fact that the Copenhagen School fails to consider these factors, an alternative model is proposed in which agent, act, and context embody different levels of securitization analysis which presents a more complex understanding of the link between the agents and the systems. (Balzacq, 2010) The agent-structure perspective, both agents and the structures are “into dynamic of action and change” – on the securitisation process, concerns the mutually agreed process where securitising actors and audience, texts and context-structure are all interconnected and embedded. (Stritzel, 2007) This model argues that the socio-political dimension including all the functions within the securitisation process has interchangeable roles, this model goes on to argue that the socio-linguistic approach, threats are developed by securitising actors through discourse.

Another type of securitisation is environmental securitisation. Buzan’s definition of environmental securitisation is that the “environmental sector of security is about relationships between human activity and the planetary biosphere”. (Buzan et al, 1998) The environment is an interdependent sector in society within which security is framed; this is because of the importance of maintaining the environment in order to ensure the survival of humankind as the environment is considered 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 en