Summary

• The monopoly on the use of force is a concept that is strongly interlinked with the idea of a state providing security. Therefore it is crucial to consider the different meanings and implications of »security« when reflecting on the future of the monopoly on the use of force.
• We suggest that two broad avenues for thinking about security may be distinguished from each other. The first perspective displays a preference for the question what security is. By contrast, the second perspective emphasizes what security does.
• »What is security?«: Many critiques of traditional security studies do not contest the ontology of security itself, but instead denote variations of an »essentialist« understanding of the security paradigm.
• »What does security do?«: Security can also be understood as an inter-subjective social practice. The securitization literature argues that security is what people say. It is a selfreferential practice that does not refer to something »more real« and attains visibility only in deliberate social conduct.