Twenty-five years after its initial formulation, securitization theory is at a crossroads: attempts
to critically scrutinize its achievements and shortcomings have proliferated, concerns about the
theory’s eurocentrism are articulated and a heated row has shaken the field following accusations
of racism. In this unstable context, ...
Twenty-five years after its initial formulation, securitization theory is at a crossroads: attempts
to critically scrutinize its achievements and shortcomings have proliferated, concerns about the
theory’s eurocentrism are articulated and a heated row has shaken the field following accusations
of racism. In this unstable context, this article systematically reviews a corpus of 171 securitization
theory 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 highlighting the relationship between them, this review article aims
to provide clear and actionable observations around which scholars could productively re-organize
the ongoing debates and controversies.