doi:10.20991/allazimuth.1564598 All Azimuth V0, N0, 2024, 1-26

Subsequently, it discusses the efficacy of the securitization discourse in terms of the two principal parameters proposed by the Copenhagen School: audience acceptance of the threat narrative contained in the securitizing moves, and the adoption of extraordinary measures. [...] These involve the designation of the securitizing actor (who talks about security), the referent object of security (who or what is to be secured), the functional actor, if any, and the audience (who will adopt the speech act, thus legitimizing the breaking of the established norms). [...] The strategic aim of this political maneuver is to demonstrate reassuring meaning in a way that supports the justification of the actions chosen as a response and encourages the audience to remain supportive.54 The intention here is to provide support for the securitization process and neutralize the opposition, while the political instrument is to produce arguments for this purpose. [...] The securitization audience can be outlined as the individual(s) or group(s) possessing the capability to authorize the narrative presented by the securitizer and legitimize the handling of the issue through security practices.97 The indispensable precondition for any securitization to exist is the acceptance of the threat designation by a significant audience. [...] However, the Copenhagen version of the ST does not provide a detailed roadmap for how the impact of the audience on the outcomes of securitization could emerge in an empirical analysis.98 Stated differently, how to measure the responses (endorsement or dissent) of the relevant audiences is an area of uncertainty in the CS.