It is interesting to note that across this war and terror endangered world, bounded by the opportunities and threats afforded by globalization, new forms of autonomy, resistance and organized violence engage equally singular systems of international regulation, humanitarian intervention and social reconstruction. In this security terrain, those systems of resistance and their opposing forces of regulation and intervention have assumed a networked and nonterritorial appearance. "While states and their security apparatuses remain pivotal, in both camps they situate themselves within and operate through complex governance networks composed of nonstate and private actors." (Mark Duffield 2002)
Within the above broad spectrum the political scientists talk about the securitization of public policy defining it as a process by which organisational or political actors use security rationales to support claims for funding particular activities or where the 'security state' uses the rhetoric of external or internal threat as a pretext for entering into new policy fields or developing new powers. However, the most recent threats of terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the spread of virulent disease together with the continuing spillover effects of 'new' wars have nonetheless created worrying threats like resource and environmental depletion and has also captured the popular imagination in such a way that nations and leaders can no longer remain complacent about the developing situations. In this context this study paper attempts to bring about the characteristic features of securitization and how the concept can be applied to the combat the war on terror.
2.0 WHAT IS SECURITSIATION- ESSENTIAL FEATURES
"Human security fits the paradigm of persuasion, just as national security lies at the core of the paradigm of power. While national security is the ideology of a state-centric international order, human security is the ideational basis of a people-centric world order underpinned by a global civil society" (Prof Amitav Acharya 2005)
As the definition goes each category of security is determined by the securitising actors and referent objects and it is also possible that the types of securities may vary across the security sectors. The Copenhagen school has expanded the definition of security to include non-military threats to a referent object.
"Over the past decade, new approaches in security studies have developed with the aim of challenging traditional realist and neo-realist theories. This debate began in response to the claim that the security agenda must be "broadened" to examine threats beyond state and military security, and "deepened" to include individual, social and global concerns.
One of the most influential of the new approaches is articulated by Barry Buzan and Ole
Waever among others, whose collective body of work is known as the Copenhagen School."- (Nicole Jackson)
It may be noted that the Copenhagen Scholl adopts a multi sectoral approach to security that represents a move away from traditional security studies and its focus on the military sector. "Those sectors include: Site security (military security) National Sovereignty/ ideology (political security) National economies (economic security) Collective identify (societal identity) Habitats (environmental security)