Why are some issues seen as threats? This dissertation attempts to explain the dynamics of threat construction by national decision-makers. The theoretical ambition is twofold: first, the dissertation aims at improving the research on threat construction by suggesting a broad approach that analyzes this process in a structured manner. Second, the dissertation also contributes to the more mainstream International Relations security research agenda, which often under-problematizes this issue. The point of departure is that the link between a condition (e.g. structure) and threat framing (e.g. agency) is not to be taken for granted, and that threat construction is subjective and varies among actors.  This assertion is supported by the findings of the dissertation’s component parts. Essay I finds that US security doctrines such as the Truman and Bush doctrines are not routine responses to external threats but rather the natural continuation of a political and societal discourse in which certain norms and identities interact. Essay II finds that a condition that could lay the foundation for a threat construction does not necessarily evoke such a reaction, such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Russia. Essay III demonstrates the opposite situation; that a securitization can take place although the contextual conditions do not necessarily point toward such a move, such as US President Clinton’s declaration that AIDS is a threat to the national security of the United States. Essay IV proposes a framework that incorporates explanatory factors from the international, the domestic, and the individual levels of analysis. Such a framework allows for a more refined analysis which better captures the contingent relationships between factors. Taken together, the findings of this dissertation indicate that the correlations between conditions and threat constructions are intricate, and that the explanation of a securitization lies in the interaction of certain social and cognitive processes.

Kina, ett expansivt land i centrala Asien, har genomgått stora förändringar sedan Andravärldskriget. Har den förändringen skapat en uppfattning i USA att Kina kan ses som ett hot?Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka hur den officiella hotbilden av Kina skildrats i USAunder åren 1991-2006. Detta med fokus på att se på vilka förändringar som eventuellt skettunder den perioden. Problemformuleringen lyder: Vilka likheter och olikheter kanidentifieras genom att jämföra hur den officiella hotbilden av Kina har skildrats under detre olika presidentadministrationerna åren 1991-2006. Resultatet visar en relativ samsynunder hela den täckta perioden. Endast vid ett fåtal tillfällen uttrycks en uppfattad hotbild. Detsom är det genomgående temat i officiella uttalanden under perioden är behovet av samarbete.Ett samarbete som leder till öppenhet och samverkan inom alla sektorer. En öppenhet som i sintur bidrar till att skapa stabilitet och även till att USA inte uppfattar Kina som ett hot. / China, a country in Asia, that have gone through great expansion and change since the end ofWW2. Has that change created a picture in USA of China as a threat against USA? The purposeof this thesis is to examine how official statements have mentioned the China threat from 1991-2006. Focusing on changes, if any, during that period. To answer the question: What is similarand what differ about the pictured threat from China, during the three differentpresidencies, 1991-2006.The examination shows a relative coherent picture during the whole period. Just in someoccasion there is an imagined threat from China. Most of the time, in the official statements, theneed for co-operation is highlighted. Co-operation leading to transparency that will help tocreate stability and also creates an environment helping USA not to think of China as a threat. / Avdelning: ALB - Slutet Mag 3 C-upps.Hylla: Upps. ChP 04-06

The purpose of the essay is both to bring forward the threats images, sectors, actors and referents that can be found at the European border between 2007-2010 and to explore whether they change during this period. Furthermore, the essay also intends to review the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization. The analysis of the essay will be done on the European commission’s “Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges”, a rapport that focus on the European border and its enlargement. The frame of analysis will be the Copenhagen School’s theory of Securitization with the acknowledgement of the critic brought forward by Johan Eriksson and Thierry Balzacq. The Copenhagen school brings forward with their theory, the importance of the discourse of security and thus presents actors and referents which are involved in the process. They also include different sectors in which the different threats images may appear. All of this will be crucial for my examination of the theory as a hole. Furthermore, the essay will modify its methodology to include some of the critic. The purpose is to test if the theory can give a satisfying view of the threat images, sectors, actors and referents at the European border, with a qualitative and a quantitative method. In conclusion, the essay found that the securitization actor during the period between 2007-2010 was the commission itself and the reference object was EU and indirect its members states. The functional actors was the organization PKK and the UN, who with their actions changes the security dynamic in the region. Furthermore, the threat images that was constantly present in the rapports, was organized crime which was consistent with the result that the most found sector was the military sector. These results can be linked to the work of Peter Andreas who argues that the American and European border have shifted from a military tasks to policing tasks. This task change is something that also can be related to Johan Eriksson’s work regarding the change of task in the Swedish security. My final conclusion is that the Securitization theory most be seen as a framework for analyses. Further discussions are need regarding the theories concepts. I notice there are three fundamental discussions that need to be focused on; the focus on the securitized threats images, the lack of including the context and the focus on the speech act.