Gallie explained security as an “essentially contested concept,” which is an apt analogy when considering this essay. Securitization theory falls within the scope of Critical Security Studies, which entered the theoretical mainstream after the post-Cold War paradigm shift. Of course, these “critical” conceptions criticize traditional positivist approaches such as realism and liberalism that had dominated the security studies dialogue before the Cold War. This reshaping of the theoretical landscape, challenging authors of the caliber of Organski and Waltz, has generated extensive debate in international relations and security studies. Specifically, over the last decade, the theological principles of securitization theory have had important ramifications in clarifying and innovating many concepts such as immigration, HIV-AIDS, and the environment (Wæver 2004). However, we need to determine whether or not securitization theory can be considered critical; to do this we need to define what we mean by the word “critical”. In the case of security, I support Biersteker in believing that it is something that “provokes(e)…the scrutiny of dominant discourses…(and) provides(s) the basis for alternative conceptualizations” (Biersteker 1989:264) . Securitization theory actually does both, although not as radically as Ken Booth's. Securitization theory “questions the norm” of security studies that admits its critical nature without drawing many parallels with other critical notions (Shepherd 2013: 5). In my essay, I will argue that securitization theory is a critical approach because it effectively bridges the gap between traditional and modern approaches, not by rejecting the notion of state-centered security altogether, but by effectively “expanding” and “broadening” positivist concepts (Buzan 2009:187-225). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Securitization theory has its origins in the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI), where it developed through collective empirically oriented research. In his report “Non-Military Aspects of European Security,” Buzan significantly changed the trajectory of security studies by challenging the idea that power is the key to security. This shift in the security debate leads to the development of critical concepts such as security as emancipation, asserting that the notion of security does not derive from power which was important in Europe at the time to counter the typically American rhetoric regarding security (Huysmans 1998: 483 –484). However, securitization theory must still be seen as a relatively top-down approach compared to other critical approaches. Securitization theory explains how political actors and elites declare a problem to constitute an existential threat to legitimize any practices needed to combat emerging risk (Wæver 1995). This rhetoric aligns with; rather than refuting the concept of traditional approaches that security derives from the power and discursive patterns of elites (Bigo 2002). While this hinders securitization theory's ability to engage with other critical approaches, it does not diminish the intellectual aptitude of the conception. Furthermore, the extent to which the “power” model dominates theories such as realism is much greater and more consequential than securitization theory. This further widens the speculative disparity between positivist and post-positivist approaches. For example, theTraditional approaches assume that war is inevitable and a recurring element of international relations. This is because by its nature the international system of states is anarchic (Seldon 2010:406), while the theory of securitization believes that threats are self-referential and therefore war cannot be inevitable (Buzan 1983:30). A key feature of a critical approach to security is that it provides a framework for new conceptualizations as opposed to those presented by traditional approaches. The way securitization theory does this does not present threats as pre-existing, unlike approaches such as realism which denotes that they are a commodity, but instead explains that an executive actor in the form of a political elite, military actor or so on can conceptualize a referent object as a security threat (Floyd 2011: 427–439). Buzan (1983:30) specifies that an issue becomes a threat only when it is “determined by actors” and all threats are “intersubjective and socially constructed”. This process of labeling is termed a “speech act” in securitization theory and explains the process through which an issue transcends the normal political sphere and becomes securitized (Wæver 1995: 55). Bagge Lautsen describes this process as occurring "with an urgency and 'necessity' that often has anti-democratic effects." This aspect of securitization theory is applicable when considering political events such as the securitization of HIV/AIDS (Mclinnes and Rushton 2011:115-138). Furthermore, we can use this concept presented by security studies to consider the political environment after 9/11 and the “War on Terror” (McDonald 2008:563). This focusing of speech acts has powerful explanatory power dating back to the 1930s, when Schmitt (1996) stated that “the perception of an enemy has the unique ability to unite the functionally fragmented society of the liberal state” (Huysmans 2006). Although securitization theory is a top-down and state-centered approach, different from other critical approaches, it still presents this new idea of ​​interaction with actors who meet the criteria required for a critical approach. One consensus agreed upon by the plethora of otherwise unified critical approaches is that the basis of social change is progress (Booth 1991). Securitization theory focuses less on this aspect than other theorists as it does not promote emancipation as a key concept. According to Booth, the definition of security is the absence of threats. Applying this concept taking into account traditional approaches, war is inevitable. This hinders the individual in their ability to be secure in Booth's eyes since in order for people to emancipate themselves they must be freed from the constraints that prevent them from doing what they wish to do; «Security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin. Emancipation, not power or order, produces true security. Emancipation, in theory, is security." (Stand 1991: 319). If securitization theory lacks this commitment to change and emancipation from constraints, it cannot be considered holistic in the same sense as other critical approaches; hindering our argument that securitization theory is a critical approach. However, securitization theory deals with justice and human rights in a much darker but equally significant way. When we examine the ontology of securitization theory we know that for an issue to be securitized the public must accept it; this means that public participation is not just encapsulated in the theory, but guides it (Balzacq 2015: 494-531). If security is intersubjective and the public is a key concept according to thesecuritization theorists, then securitization theory appears much more holistic than we initially thought. For example, Roe (2008: 615-635) points out that in 2003 contested views on the invasion of Iraq meant that the issue was not fully securitized. Booth recognizes that in politics the word “security” is “overloaded” with power and extends far beyond individuals and families (Shepherd 2013); despite this, it is still overly idealistic while securitization theory is realistic. Another aspect of securitization theory that makes it critical is that it may be similar in some ways to positivist approaches, but it goes beyond their understanding of security as it not only presents the idea of ​​securitization but also the idea of ​​desecuritization. 'Desecuritisation, like the opposite process, moves an issue “out of emergency mode and into the normal bargaining process of the political sphere” (Buzan et al. 1998:4).' This means that security is a means to an end and, in fact, the need for security is a failure (Wæver 1995:29). This aspect of the approach has much greater descriptive power than traditional approaches when examining issues such as the spread of infectious diseases. For example, the securitization of Ebola was described by Kaplan (1994:36) as having erected “An impenetrable border…that threatens to isolate the continent as a whole: the wall of disease”. The onset of fatal diseases is not a recent phenomenon; we can trace this to historical cases of bubonic plague, for example (Altman 2003:419). However, from the way securitization theory explains it, we can see how an international threat can be created through the securitization of this issue. However, the desecuritization of this issue is the most important thing to note as it explains how threats can be reinserted into civil discourse. Kekule (2015) explained that to avoid panic and economic hardship, it is essential to desecuritize the Ebola issue. Securitization theory has successfully expanded our understanding of security when considering Ebola in a way that traditional approaches could not. Furthermore, Aradau (2004: 389) argues that within securitization theory there is “indecision regarding the appropriateness of desecuritization” as it is a vague concept that is not sufficiently elaborated in the security studies literature; a fancy concept that doesn't have much predictive power. However, Weaver (2000:251) denotes that desecuritization is “probably ideal,” in the sense that it is less of a political tool and more reminiscent of Booth's (unfixed) political desires within the security of emancipation. For example, its desire to “move beyond state-centered security” is similar to securitization theory's concept of desecuritization; the "ideal" but not yet reality. Evaluating securitization theory as a critical approach is complex as there is a wide range of academic assessments in the security field. However, when examining the goals and application of securitization theory within the political framework of security, its intellectual robustness is distinguishable as it has significantly aided the study of security and offered innovative analysis of modern events ; but this has certainly not gone unchallenged (e.g. Mcsweeney, 1996). Unlike approaches such as security as empowerment, securitization theory views security as a social construct which I believe is much more productive when identifying, analyzing and resolving real-life threats..