move this issue ‘beyond politics’ because of the social and institutional authority they hold. Security issues therefore are not out in the public sphere yet but rather is expressed as issues that securitising actors wish to put “out there”. For example, a securitising actor can label immigration a ‘danger to national security’, this label shifts the threat of immigration from a low concern to a high priority issue meaning immediate action is required such as border security to be increased and monitored in more depth. (Williams, 2011) Traditional ways and methods to deal with security in IR has been criticised by the Securitisation theory, arguing that issues are not debilitating in themselves; but by labelling these issues as a ‘security’ issue, it has become a security issue. Right now, constructivist stream of IR represents a certain framework through which engaging with security studies. (Balzacq, 2010) The main argument is within the “securitisation paradigm” which the Copenhagen School of IR conceptualised, this argument states that security issues are socially constructed through discourse. (Weaver, 1995) This theory is an alternative view through which managing the process of a security threat 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