Since the 2010s, with the increase in populist politicians and authoritarian leaders, political methods that appeal to people's threat perceptions have been attracting attention. In this context, securitization research has also been the subject of considerable attention as a method for analyzing people's threat perceptions. For example, securitization represents a crucial theoretical framework for examining a range of issues such as immigration, environmental concerns, and terrorism. The Copenhagen School, which focuses on the analysis of politicians' discourse, and the Paris School, which concentrates on the behavior of bureaucrats and legislative functions, are based on critical security studies. However, as a result, they face challenges in terms of empirical analysis.
There are a number of potential avenues for further strenghthening the empirical case for securitization. The first is to examine recent trends in securitization research, or its history, and to gain insight into the shortcomings and necessary aspects of the securitization framework. A second avenue is to accumulate analyses of phenomena that have emerged in recent years, such as the rise of populism and authoritarianism. From the accumulation of such analyses, it will be possible to consider what is needed to change the securitization framework. A third approach would be to introduce quantitative methods, which critical security studies are reluctant to adopt. A fourth avenue would be the introduction of securitization into comparative political analysis. Securitization is a framework of international relations, but unusually for an international relations framework, it deals directly with domestic issues such as leaders' discourse and changes to laws. As such, it is highly likely to contribute not only to international relations but also to comparative political analysis. The objective of this panel is to undertake a comprehensive reexamination of the framework of securitization from a multiplicity of perspectives.