distinct sector. At the same time, however, further rehabilitation of the ST framework remains to be done. Most importantly, revision and clarification is required in providing greater insight as to both the selection of particular frames of reference by securitizing actors in making their security moves, and to elucidating those factors that shape the likelihood that a particular audience will accept the credibility and salience of a given securitization move. For that, we turn to framing theory. The Corrective Role of Framing within the Securitization Framework In an effort to bolster the theoretical and conceptual sharpness of ST, this paper incorporates elements of framing theory (FT) into the broader securitization framework. The complementary nature of ST and FT has been most thoroughly addressed to this point by Watson in his article published in 2012. Watson only that these two bodies of (2012: 280) argues “not work are compatible and based on strongly overlapping theoretical and normative commitments, but also that as a distinct master frame similar to and and ‘security’ operates ‘rights’ ‘injustice’ that securitization theory maybe usefully be seen as a subfield of framing.” Although it is likely an overstatement to conceptualize securitization as a of “subfield there is no doubt that the two theories overlap in important and meaningful ways, and framing,” moreover that certain elements of FT in fact offer a useful compliment to some of the most crucial pillars of the ST framework. Of particular importance is the concept of collective action frames in the framing literature. As described by Benford and Snow (2000: 613), collective action frames involve the production of mobilizing and counter-mobilizing “the struggle over
distinct sector. At the same time, however, further rehabilitation of the ST framework remains to be done. Most importantly, revision and clarification is required in providing greater insight as to both the selection of particular frames of reference by securitizing actors in making their security moves, and to elucidating those factors that shape the likelihood that a particular audience will accept the credibility and salience of a given securitization move. For that, we turn to framing theory. The Corrective Role of Framing within the Securitization Framework In an effort to bolster the theoretical and conceptual sharpness of ST, this paper incorporates elements of framing theory (FT) into the broader securitization framework. The complementary nature of ST and FT has been most thoroughly addressed to this point by Watson in his article published in 2012. Watson (2012: 280) argues “not only that these two bodies of work are compatible and based on strongly overlapping theoretical and normative commitments, but also that ‘security’ operates as a distinct master frame similar to ‘rights’ and ‘injustice’ and that securitization theory maybe usefully be seen as a subfield of framing.” Although it is likely an overstatement to conceptualize securitization as a “subfield of framing,” there is no doubt that the two theories overlap in important and meaningful ways, and moreover that certain elements of FT in fact offer a useful compliment to some of the most crucial pillars of the ST framework. Of particular importance is the concept of collective action frames in the framing literature. As described by Benford and Snow (2000: 613), collective action frames involve “the struggle over the production of mobilizing and counter-mobilizing