knowledge about this issue, there is a negative aspect to security. Securitisation becomes a self-referential practice because the people of a nation or the audience do not have a say in the decision making or uphold a securitisation move – a move which the state decides. (Buzan et al, 1998; Salter, 2012) An issue that is considered a threat is an intersubjective construction, so the securitising move will be accepted by the audience in order to appeal for emergency measures. (Balzacq, 2009) Security therefore becomes a negative concept as normal political issues are not dealt with. Some securitisation theorists argue that de-securitising an issue is more effective because it has “progressive alternatives to the status quo” (Wyn, 2005) Securitisation is the process where normal politics is isolated or separated from emergency politics so the difference between what ‘real security’ is for ‘real people’ because of the active role played by securitising actors through speech acts. Lene Hansen highlights the fact that there are two ‘blind spots’ in the securitisation theory; ‘security as silence’ and ‘subsuming security’. (Hansen, 2000) Hansen argues security as silence is the idea when insecurities cannot be voiced in a situation; this could be for various reason, those facing insecurity may not have the authority to speak out or because voicing out their opinions may aggravate the threat further. Subsuming security refers to link between a subjects gender identity and their other identities like religion, ethnicity or national identity. (Mitzen, 2006). The Copenhagen School argues that gender can be a referent object that can lead to securitising a situation however Hansen disagrees with this definition arguing that it gender is not a sufficient object.

Second generation securitization scholars argue the idea of securitisation can be understood in two different ways; internalist adopt the post-structural stance arguing securitisation produces security through speech acts whilst externalists, adopt the constructivist approach, understanding security as a more complex social process. (Stritzel, 2011) Internalist therefore, focus on speech acts and context-shaping whilst externalists consider securitisation as context dependent process (Stritzel, 2007) Moreover, the Aberystwyth School’s (Critical Security Studi