Twenty-five Years of Securitization Theory: A Corpus-based Review
| Author | Stephane J Baele,Diana Jalea |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211069499 |
| Published date | 01 May 2023 |
| Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Subject Matter | State of the Art – Review Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211069499
Political Studies Review
2023, Vol. 21(2) 376 –389
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14789299211069499
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Twenty-five Years of
Securitization Theory:
A Corpus-based Review
Stephane J Baele1 and Diana Jalea2
Abstract
Twenty-five years after its initial formulation, securitization theory is at a crossroads: attempts
to critically scrutinize its achievements and shortcomings proliferate, concerns about the theory’s
eurocentrism are articulated, and a heated row shakes the field following accusations of racism.
In this unstable context, the present article systematically reviews a corpus of 171 securitization
papers published in 15 major International Relations journals since 1995, identifying two major
imbalances characterizing securitization theory research. First, rich theoretical development has
not been matched by sustained efforts to strengthen empirical work; second, the theory has not
been globally embraced, displaying instead a narrow, distinctly local anchoring. By shedding light
on these two issues and their relationships, this review article aims to provide clear and actionable
observations around which scholars could productively re-organize the ongoing debates and
controversies.
Keywords
securitization theory, methods, review, evaluation, corpus
Accepted: 8 December 2021
Securitization Theory at a Crossroads
About 25 years after the publication of securitization theory’s (ST) seminal texts –
Wæver’s chapter Securitization and Desecuritization (1995) and Buzan et al.’s book
Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998)1 – the theory is undoubtedly at a cross-
roads. Journals publish special issues debating the framework’s strengths and weaknesses
(International Relations, 2015; Polity, 2019), articles evaluate the theory’s achievements
and challenges (e.g. Balzacq et al., 2016), International Relations (IR) blogs host forums
questioning ST’s lack of traction in US academia2 and, more recently, a heated contro-
versy pitted scholars defending the theory’s critical credentials against those lambasting
its position vis-a-vis race and ethnicity (see Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2020, versus
1Centre for Advanced International Studies, Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
2Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Corresponding author:
Stephane J Baele, Centre for Advanced International Studies, Department of Politics, University of Exeter,
Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK.
Email: s.baele@exeter.ac.uk
1069499PSW0010.1177/14789299211069499Political Studies ReviewBaele and Jalea
research-article2021
State of the Art - Review Article
To continue reading
Request your trial