he securitisation theory however, has faced many criticism, a weakness of the theory is that it appears to be “problematically narrow” (McDonald, 2008) The securitisation theory is said to be over focusing on discourse acts of securitising actors whose decisions are considered just; these securitising actors are political elites who take the decision of what actions are to be taken when there is a security issue (Neocleous & Rigakos, 2011) as opposed to the images or material practices that can speak security themselves. (Williams, 2011) Furthermore, by only focusing on a small section of the intercession it has been disregarded how security threats can be built through a certain representation. In reality, the securitisation theory appears to have strengthen the negative ideas of security into a commodity, which undermines the various socio-political backgrounds. (Gad and Peterson, 2011) Thus, it is required to point out critical highlights of “contextual factors” in changing practical and analytical dimensions of the securitisation theory to enhance the understanding of the elements which build security issues. Focusing on this issue, the second generation of the securitisation theory (Balzacq 2005) indicates how the Copenhagen School fails to manage the effect of the social setting on the process. Therefore, it is propelled an externalist reading of securitisation on the extent of arguing that social roles and relations are not fixed, and discourse acts are not performative of security. This, overhauls an all the more bewildering comprehension of securitisation to the extent of observing roles and importance as progressively and mutually built.

The conclusion of the Cold War started a debate over thoughts and ideas of security in IR between ‘narrowers’ and ‘wideners’. The narrowers were concerned with the security of the state and frequently focused on examining the military and political stability between the United States and the Soviet Union. Disappointed with this, wideners look for to incorporate other sorts of risks and threats that were not military in nature and that influenced individuals rather than states. This expanded the security plane by involving concepts such as human security, territorial security and regional security – together with ideas of culture and identity. Feminism had an imperative part in broadening the agenda by challenging the thought that the sole supplier of security was the state and that gender was not important in the production of security. On the other hand, the state was regularly the cause of uncertainties and insecurities for women. Extending the agenda from a feminist point of view brought gender into focus by putting gender and women as the centre of security calculations and by illustrating that gender, war and security were interw