HUMAN SECURITY JOURNAL Volume 5, Winter 2007 ▪ 38 ▪ Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach: Conceptualizing Human Security as a Securitizing Move 1 D OES THE HUMAN SECURITY AppROACH offer an alternative to the Copenhagen School’s securitization approach? And, connected to this, what, if any, relationship exists between the two approaches? This article seeks to answer both of these critical questions. Such a comparative analysis between the human security agenda and the Copenhagen School’s securitization approach may at irst seem somewhat nonsensical. After all, one is a policy- making agenda whilst the other is a theoretical tool for the analysis of security policies. In short, the two concepts occupy different positions in the logic of security. It can be argued, however, that precisely because the two approaches occupy opposite ends of a spectrum, a comparative study helps to reveal the diverse nature of critical security studies. In this article, the human security approach–although a policymaking agenda–is taken to be an approach within critical security studies simply by virtue of being critical of the mainstream, state-centric security studies. Moreover, any comparative analysis carries with it the added beneit of showing the limitations of that which is compared. This article is no exception and comparing the securitization approach with the human security approach in terms of both analytical utility and normative utility sheds light on the shortcomings and merits of each approach; it does not seek to bring about competition between the two approaches, nor does it even suggest that such competition exists. For purposes of structure this article is divided into two parts. The irst part examines whether the human security approach offers an alternative to the securitization approach in terms of analytical utility. The second part engages with a different interpretation of "alternative." Thus, instead of reading "alternative" from within the "narrow" constraints of a concept’s analytical utility (or put Rita Floyd Rita Floyd has recently been awarded her PhD from the University of Warwick, where she will commence an ESRC post- doctoral fellowship in early 2008. She has previously published in the "Review of International Studies" and the "Journal of International Relations and Development." The Copenhagen School The article compares the Copenhagen School’s securitization approach to the human security approach, both in terms of analytical utility and norma- tive utility. It states that human security lacks any analytical utility, while having the upper hand on the securitization approach in terms of normative utility. The Copenhagen School is indeed unable to make recommendations aimed at improving the lives of the most disadvantaged.