Keywords
Copenhagen School
security
security policy
security state
international anarchy
How to Cite
Abstract
Under the conditions of modern international anarchy, a state’s capacity for rapid mobilization takes precedence over adherence to the procedures of “normal politics.” This research proposes a departure from the normative stigmatization of security measures and substantiates the “security state” model, wherein the priority of efficiency and sovereignty protection dissolves the traditional dichotomy between security and liberty. The relevance of this study is driven by the need to reconceptualize the phenomenon of securitization, which, under the pressure of an anarchic environment, is evolving from a temporary instrument into a permanent principle of political space organization. The article aims to analyze the transformation of securitization theory in contemporary discourse and to justify the shift in the status of security practices from “normative aberrations” (“a failure of politics”) to decisions essential for state survival (the “security state”) amidst technological change. The study is based on the methodology of qualitative conceptual analysis and critical synthesis. An interpretivist approach is applied to compare the liberal-institutional view, structural and neoclassical realism, the theory of “Just Securitization”, and the sociological approach of the Paris School. The article proves the theoretical inadequacy of the liberal approach, which viewed securitization as a “pathology,” in the context of the “relative gains” dilemma. Based on neoclassical realism, it is shown that for democracies prone to “underbalancing” and strategic inertia, securitization serves as a necessary tool for resource mobilization. The role of ontological security is analyzed, explaining states’ need for stable identity narratives to preserve their agency. Special attention is paid to the “technological turn”: it is substantiated that the development of mass surveillance and the automation of warfare transform securitization into a “pragmatic act” that precedes political decisions. It is revealed that in the modern world, democracy is forced to adapt to the logic of efficiency to withstand authoritarian threats. It is concluded that the “security vs. Democracy” dichotomy is losing its relevance. The formation of a “security state” model, where the state of emergency becomes permanent, is an inevitable reaction to structural anarchy and technological challenges. Securitization today is not an elite choice but an unavoidable mechanism for preserving sovereignty and ensuring the physical survival of the political nation.
References
1. Ayoob, M. (1995). The Third World security predicament: State making, regional conflict, and the international system. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
2. Balzacq, T. (2011). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203868508
3. Barkin, J. S. (2003). Realist constructivism. International Studies Review, 5(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1079-1760.2003.00503002.x
4. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(1), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105
5. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
6. Christensen, T. J. (1996). Useful adversaries: Grand strategy, domestic mobilization, and Sino-American conflict, 1947–1958. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzxx9j2
7. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Knopf.
8. Floyd, R. (2019). The morality of security: A theory of just securitization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108667814
9. Gat, A. (2010). Victorious and vulnerable: Why democracy won in the 20th century and how it is still imperiled. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
10. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664267
11. Götz, E. (2016). Neorealism and Russia’s Ukraine policy, 1991–present. Contemporary Politics, 22(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2016.1201312
12. Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027715
13. Herington, J. (2015). The concept of security, liberty, fear, and the state. In P. Bourbeau (Ed.), Security: Dialogue across disciplines (pp. 22–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316227671.003
14. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7sq9s
15. Krasner, S. D. (1985). Structural conflict: The Third World against global liberalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York, NY: Norton.
17. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to fail: The rise and fall of the liberal international order. International Security, 43(4), 7–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00342
18. Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346
19. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870112
20. Neocleous, M. (2008). Critique of security. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633289.001.0001
21. Schweller, R. L. (2006). Unanswered threats: Political constraints on the balance of power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rkxt
22. Steele, B. J. (2008). Ontological security in international relations: Self-identity and the IR state. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203018200
23. Virilio, P. (1986). Speed and politics: An essay on dromology. New York: Semiotext(e).
24. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
25. Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic Books.
26. Zakaria, F. (1998). From wealth to power: The unusual origins of America’s world role. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzcz5bq
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Yaroslav Bozhko