Securitization theory was pioneered by the Copenhagen School，But under what circumstances the security process is initiated，The Copenhagen School did not explain；The intersubjectivity of security and the orientation of securitization must be desecuritization, etc.，has also been criticized by academic circles。Although later the Welsh School、The Paris School supplemented this，But in the process of security，The interaction of security actors and the normalization of insecurity still lack theoretical justification。With the expansion of the influence and application scope of security，Subject to a more general and concise interpretation framework，The limitations of its theory have become increasingly prominent in specific safety practices。Therefore，It is necessary to treat the above with the Copenhagen School、Re-examination of European security studies theories represented by the Welsh School and the Paris School。

The so-called securitization dilemma，It refers to theoretical problems that have not been fully explored and resolved in securitization research，It also refers to the practical difficulties faced when applying securitization theory in a global context。On a theoretical level，Securitization theory cannot account for the choice of whether or how securitization actors implement securitization at each node；On a practical level，Empirical research on securitization has obvious geographical limitations and topic limitations。According to the theoretical connotation of securitization and the different morphological characteristics presented in its evolution，Security is divided into startup、Three stages of process Bet365 app download and result，There are certain securitization dilemmas in these three stages。For this，It is necessary to review the securitization theory by integrating the theoretical dilemmas of the three schools。

　Bet365 app download

The “appropriateness” dilemma of securitization exists in the initial stage of securitization，Mainly divided into two situations: "excessive securitization" and "lack of securitization"。The existing securitization theory has never been able to provide a way to judge whether a certain public issue constitutes an "existential threat"，Is this judgment based on objective security、Subjective safety or intersubjective safety cognition，The Copenhagen School did not give a precise explanation。In addition，Existing securitization theories ignore the securitization preferences of security actors and the impact of political systems on this preferences。Start with which issues can be elevated from public issues to security issues，Different ways of operating power in political systems will inevitably affect the decision to initiate securitization。Therefore，Lack of clear judgment basis for secure startup，In any case, it may lead to the emergence of securitization "appropriateness" dilemma。

In startup phase，The dilemma of “appropriateness” of securitization is mainly manifested in two aspects。One，Unable to clearly define the criteria for initiating security，Ignore the differences in securitization preferences of security actors and the impact of political systems on this preference；Part 2，The security referents covered by security issues are limited，It is difficult to elevate issues concerning the interests of vulnerable groups to security issues。The actors of securitization are driven by interest preferences，Often ignore changes in the international security environment and are obsessed with the launch of securitization；Bet365 lotto review Out of political interests or social cost considerations，Public issues involving vulnerable groups or that are not conducive to the interests of powerful groups may be elevated to security issues even if necessary，The actors of securitization often have no intention of starting the securitization process。Due to the improper securitization behavior of the securitization actor during the startup phase，What follows will inevitably be the dilemma of “over-securitization” or “lack of securitization”。

The dilemma of "appropriateness" of securitization does not only arise from the objective existence or subjective recognition criteria of the so-called "existential threat"，It stems from the complexity of the intersubjective construction of securitization。The generation mechanism of the “appropriateness” dilemma of securitization is，Differences in securitization preferences of security actors and differences in power distribution structures within political systems。Of course，The existence of a public issue and the threat it poses to the referent，is a prerequisite for starting security。Different securitization actors perceive different levels of “threat” in the same issue，There are naturally differences in securitization interest preferences among actors。The key to securitization lies in how securitization actors make appropriate choices through benign interactions，So as to avoid the dilemma of excessive or insufficient securitization。

　　Ignore the positive interaction between actors

The main dilemma of securitization “interaction” exists in the securitization process stage，It has a double meaning。First, the form of interaction is single、One way；The second is improper use of interactive methods。Both the Copenhagen School and the Welsh School ignored the role of behavior in the construction of security，Only place it in a subordinate position to speech。actually，Security is not purely a result bet365 best casino games of language construction，Discourse and practice have a close interdependence in securitization。Although it is unobjectionable to combine the constructive ability of speech with power，But this combination may bring three results。One，Security actors and audiences may not truly share a common threat perception。Because security actors and audiences control the policy agenda、There is an asymmetry of information and power in terms of discourse tools，Securitization is often decided and initiated unilaterally by securitization actors，Security actors only need to define a certain issue as a security issue，Urgent and special measures can be taken to deal with the threat，No need to form a common security threat perception with the audience。Part 2，In some cases，It is difficult for vulnerable groups to express their safety demands。Part 3，There is a "security black box" in the process of political operation。Many securitization actions have long been institutionalized，Security practices do not need to be legitimated through security debates or public pronouncements in security discourse，This will reduce the influence of the audience in security matters。

The dilemma of “interactivity” in securitization is mainly reflected in two aspects。First，Due to the divergence between discourse and practice，Coupled with the failure to play the positive role of power in the securitization process，Resulting in a single and one-way form of securitization interaction。Second，Improper use of secure interaction methods，Cause the people、The security interests of society and the country cannot be balanced。This not only creates a dilemma in the interaction of actors during the evolution of securitization，Also leads to the goal of "paranoia" in security governance，It also makes the benign interaction of "speech-behavior" in the safe field during bet365 Play online games the interaction process of actors to be "avoided"。

Due to the Copenhagen School、Western securitization theories represented by the Welsh School and the Paris School have failed to realize the securitization construction of "speech-practice"，Separating the relationship between securitization theory and practice，Therefore, it is difficult to achieve benign interaction among securitized actors。Securitization actors are composed of multiple security actors，Diversification of security actors，In fact, it reflects the reality of diversified international security issues。The increasing number of non-traditional security issues，Reflects diversified security actors、Diversified means of maintaining security、The ever-expanding security agenda and reflection on the value of security。In addition，Securitization should also be carried out in the security field formed by benign interaction between multiple security actors，And achieve the integration of "inside" and "outside" in the safe field。Safety issues are constructed within the security field，Any security actor is in a safe field，The security field is the result of the positive interaction of multiple security actors。

　There is a biased understanding of “de-securitization”

There is a “guidance” dilemma of securitization in the final stage of securitization。Securitization may have three outcome orientations: "de-securitization", "safe normalization" and "unsafe normalization"，But in reality, it will lead more to the "normalization of safety" and the subsequent "normalization of insecurity"，This will weaken people’s sense of security。Because "de-securitization" was proposed by the Copenhagen School as a securitization goal，Not aware that an issue can be securitized，It does not mean that it can also be "desecuritized"。Therefore，The result stage of securitization faces two dilemmas。First, it puts the country in bet365 best casino games opposition to the people，Unable to coordinate the relationship between the government and the people；Second, the understanding of “de-securitization” is biased，The securitization “direction” dilemma that leads to the inability to turn insecurity into safety through the mechanism of “de-securitization”。The “guidance” dilemma of securitization is mainly manifested in the fact that the securitization process has been unable to end or has been in a “securitization” state for a long time，Entering the “de-securitization” agenda and even evolving into “security normalization”，This creates a series of negative externality problems。

"De-securitization" was proposed as the result orientation of the Copenhagen School's securitization theory，The existence of its theoretical “guiding” dilemma，Mainly depends on the consequences of "normalization of insecurity" brought about by securitization。Therefore，The choice of when to desecuritize should be based on the specific security process，To avoid the occurrence of "unsafe normalization"。There are three ways to solve the securitization-oriented dilemma，First, after the security process has been completed，Restart the de-securitization process to end the security crisis。The second is to incorporate desecuritization into the response thinking in the early stage or even the beginning of crisis response，This creates certain constraints and restrictions on the security process。The third is to avoid entering the security process，Desecuritization before securitization has started。In short，Research on three types of securitization dilemmas and their generation mechanisms，It is undoubtedly of great policy significance to achieve "good governance" and "good governance" in global security governance。

　　(The author is a professor at the Northeast Asian Studies Center of Zhejiang Yuexiu International Studies University、Retired Professor, School of International Relations, Sun Yat-sen University；Ph.D. candidate at the School of International Political Economics, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)