The critique will highlight opinions from two different authors who have covered the idea of securitization in detail.
Waever approach to securitization does not address the dynamics of security in the current world. His arguments raise moral and ethical concerns that render the arguments weak (Wæver, 1993). Issues of radical and disturbing security elements arise from his books. In his article, Words, Images, and Enemies: Securitization and International Politics, Williams (2003) highlights identifies ethics in politics as one of the dynamics of security that has not been addressed comprehensively. The theory can offer a platform for engaging in dialogs whenever security issues across the international border arise, but it does not have divergent perspective on all problems that ail the global security platform. Williams asserts that Waever would have covered securitization issue comprehensively if he concentrated on a reflexive approach. The approach would have encompassed social practices, analysis and theories surrounding security in the society. The main tool for addressing security does not lie in the conventions and meanings related to security but substantive approach in the issue.
The proposition of Waever that securitization relates to speech-act is flawed. The author is criticized for presenting the securitization theory with a narrow approach such as speech-act (Wæver, 1993). Williams notes that the author fails to cover the communicative and social context of the theory with respect to contemporary politics. Every securitization procedure must follow the due processes of the relevant institution handling security. Williams is discontented by Waever for deciding to include Schmittian legacy in the securitization theory. While William feels that the context should have been met with a comprehensive interrogation, Waever is convinced that there are no political consequences or ethical