Christopher S. Browning, Matt McDonald
6 min
Critical security studies has become a central sub-discipline in International Relations, yet it remains conceptually fragmented. The authors argue that despite this fragmentation, the field is unified by three core commitments: a critique of traditional realist security approaches, an investigation into the politics of security (what security does), and an inquiry into the ethics of security (what constitutes progressive practice). The paper evaluates the two most prominent frameworks—the Welsh School and the Copenhagen School—to determine if they successfully address these core concerns.
The authors contend that existing critical scholarship often relies on universalizing security logics that fail to account for the diversity of global political contexts. The Copenhagen School, for instance, views security as an inherently exclusionary 'panic politics' that should be avoided through 'desecuritization.' Conversely, the Welsh School views security through the lens of 'emancipation,' often assuming that security can be a progressive force. The authors argue that both approaches are problematic: they either treat security as inherently pernicious or inherently benign, ignoring how security functions differently across various social, historical, and political settings.
The paper concludes that the future of critical security studies depends on moving beyond these binary, universalizing claims. The authors advocate for a shift toward 'immanent critique'—a method that identifies possibilities for progress within specific, existing social orders. They argue that researchers must stop assuming that security always produces the same effects. Instead, the field needs nuanced, reflexive analyses that examine how security is constructed, practiced, and challenged in diverse contexts, rather than relying on abstract, Western-centric definitions of progress or threat.
‘Critical security studies’ has come to occupy a prominent place within the lexicon of International Relations and security studies over the past two decades. While disagreement exists about the boundaries of this sub-discipline or indeed some of its central commitments, in this article we argue that we can indeed talk about a ‘critical security studies’ project orienting around three central themes. The first is a fundamental critique of traditional (realist) approaches to security; the second is a concern with the politics of security — the question of what security does politically; while the third is with the ethics of security — the question of what progressive practices look like regarding security. We suggest that it is the latter two of these concerns with the politics and ethics of security that ultimately define the ‘critical security studies’ project. Taking the so-called Welsh School and Copenhagen School frameworks as archetypal examples of ‘critical security studies’ (and its limits), in this article we argue that despite its promises, scholarship in this tradition has generally fallen short of providing us with a sophisticated, convincing account of either the politics or the ethics of security. At stake in the failure to provide such an account is the fundamental question of whether we need a ‘critical security studies’ at all.
Sam: [nodding in voice, precise] That is the critique. They swap a pernicious security for an emancipatory one but keep a fixed, universalizing logic. They often don't test whether their emphasis on dialogue and deliberation empowers vulnerable groups or just lends legitimacy to liberal interventionism. Critics have described this as a velvet glove on the iron hand of power. The authors add that these schools under-theorize what progress looks like. They fall back on vague liberal notions like dialogue or harm reduction, which look thin against the complexity of global politics. [[RP_SECTION:contextual-mapping-methodology|Contextual Mapping Methodology]]
Alex: [deliberate, checking understanding] So the proposal isn't to drop the "critical" label. It is to stop asking whether security is good or bad in the abstract, and ask how it functions as a political technology in a specific setting.
Sam: [quiet conviction, measured] Right, and that is also where the paper is thinnest. It demands a move away from the universal binary, but it leaves the methodology for contextual mapping to the researcher. You are essentially building your own analytical framework for each case.
Alex: [processing, analytical] That is a significant burden. If I am studying climate change policy, I cannot simply reach for the Copenhagen toolkit. I have to work out how "security" operates in that local political ecosystem.
Sam: [nodding in voice, precise] Exactly. You perform a contextual audit. You trace how the language of security interacts with local power structures and historical memory. It is less about applying a theory and more about tracing a practice. [[RP_SECTION:practical-implications|Practical Implications]]
Alex: [thoughtful, moderate pace] Then the practical implication is a norm of justification. You would have to defend the framework you choose rather than defaulting to one of the established schools.
Sam: [quiet conviction, measured] That is the hope. The aim is to stop theories designed for Western, liberal contexts from being applied uncritically to the rest of the world. The cost is that the method is left open, and the paper leaves that cost with the researcher.
Alex: [deliberate, warm] If you want the specific examples and the method choices we skipped, you can generate a deep dive of this paper. The paper has the rest either way.
Sam: [measured, warm] Thanks for listening.