Against ‘Security Threats’: Making the Case for a Referent-Centred Security Paradigm

This article interrogates the widespread use of the term “security threat†in scholarly and policy discourse, arguing that it is conceptually flawed and operationally counterproductive. The objective is to demonstrate that threats are not directed at security in the abstract, but rather at specific referent objects, including individuals, communities, states, livelihoods, or ecosystems whose vital core is endangered. By characterizing the framework of protection as the object of protection, the term “security threats†obscures analytical clarity, thereby risking misdirection in policy responses. Methodologically, the paper adopts a critical-conceptual approach informed by constructivist security theory, particularly the Copenhagen School’s notion of securitization. It draws on textual analysis of classical and contemporary security frameworks ranging from Hobbes, Kant, and Morgenthau to Buzan, Wæver, and Kaldor, while also using illustrative case-based reasoning. The results show that the phrase “security threat†is not only vague but also politically problematic, as it bears the potential to shift attention away from those who are actually at risk. To address this, a referent-centred approach that asks the defining questions: security for whom, and from what Is proposed. This approach enables threats to be described with a focus on the people, communities, or systems directly affected. The article concludes that doing away with the term “security threats†in favour of a referent-centred model restores analytical coherence and “grounds interventions†in the lived realities of those most at risk.