BI Yantao
1.Professor, School of International Communication and Art, Hainan University，China
2.Editor-in-Chief, Communication Without Borders (CWB). Hong Kong
May 9, 2026
Abstract
For a considerable period, international communication was primarily understood as a process of information exchange, cultural interaction, and national image construction, grounded in the principles of openness and communication. Over the past decade, however, an increasing number of states have begun to regard cross-border information flows as potential security risks or even as instruments of strategic influence. In response, governments and institutions have progressively incorporated communication-related issues into security frameworks through legal, regulatory, and platform-based mechanisms. This article conceptualizes this process as the “securitization of international communication.”
The paper argues that securitization should not be reduced to simple information control. Rather, it is a structural process through which communication issues are reframed as security concerns under specific political, technological, and cognitive conditions. The article analyzes the drivers, actors, regional variations, and long-term implications of this trend, while emphasizing its impact on global information systems and cross-cultural understanding.
Key words: International Communication; Securitization; Information Governance; Cognitive Security; Strategic Communication
1. Information Is No Longer Just Information: The Accelerating Securitization of International Communication
For much of the modern era, international communication was generally understood as a process of information exchange, cultural interaction, and national image construction. Its underlying logic emphasized openness, connectivity, and mutual understanding. In recent years, however, this framework has undergone a significant transformation. Increasingly, states and institutions view cross-border information flows not merely as channels of communication, but as potential vectors of influence, manipulation, or strategic intervention. In this context, communication itself is gradually being incorporated into security frameworks.
This article refers to this process as the “securitization of international communication.”
It is important to clarify at the outset that securitization does not simply mean censorship or direct information control, nor does it imply that all communication activities are perceived as threats. More precisely, securitization describes a process through which communication-related issues are transformed into security issues under specific political and social conditions. Although the concept is historically associated with the Copenhagen School of Security Studies, its meaning has expanded considerably in the digital era.
2.What Is the Securitization of International Communication?
The securitization of international communication can be understood as a three-stage process.
The first stage involves risk identification. Certain forms of cross-border communication—including information dissemination, content distribution, or narrative shaping—are framed as potential political, social, or cognitive risks. Terms such as “disinformation,” “foreign interference,” and “information manipulation” frequently emerge within this stage.
The second stage is cognitive diffusion. These risk narratives circulate through media systems, expert discourse, policy institutions, and digital platforms, gradually becoming accepted by broader publics and decision-making communities. Over time, a degree of social consensus regarding perceived informational threats begins to emerge.
The third stage is institutionalization. Governments, regulatory bodies, and platforms incorporate these perceived risks into formal governance structures through laws, policies, platform rules, or enforcement mechanisms. Examples include enhanced content regulation, platform accountability requirements, and national security reviews of foreign digital services.
These stages are not strictly linear. Rather, they interact and reinforce one another. Once securitization becomes institutionalized, it often develops strong continuity and path dependency.
3.Why Is Securitization Emerging?
The securitization of international communication has not emerged in a vacuum. It is the result of multiple structural transformations.
First, the technological environment has changed profoundly. Social media platforms, algorithmic recommendation systems, and generative artificial intelligence have dramatically lowered the barriers to information production and dissemination. At the same time, these technologies have increased the speed, scale, and uncertainty of information distortion, manipulation, and amplification. Under such conditions, information is no longer viewed solely as expression; it increasingly functions as an instrument of influence.
Second, transformations in international relations have contributed to this trend. As geopolitical competition intensifies, information becomes embedded within broader strategic competition. Communication activities are therefore more likely to be interpreted through the lens of intentional influence operations, bringing them into the domain of national security.
Third, shifts in public cognitive structures also play a role. As trust in information authenticity declines, societies become more receptive to risk-oriented narratives surrounding communication and information flows. This provides an important cognitive foundation for securitization processes.
Securitization, therefore, contains both objective and constructed dimensions. It is neither entirely fabricated nor purely inevitable. Rather, it represents a selective amplification and institutional response to perceived informational risks.
4.Who Defines “Risk”?
Risk does not emerge automatically. It is continuously defined, interpreted, and reconstructed by different actors.
States and governmental institutions generally possess the ultimate authority to formally classify an issue as a matter of security through legislation, policy, or administrative measures. Prior to that stage, however, media organizations, think tanks, experts, and policy communities often shape the initial interpretive frameworks that influence public understanding.
Digital platforms also play an increasingly important role in this process. Through content moderation, account restrictions, algorithmic adjustments, and visibility controls, platforms influence which information becomes amplified and which information becomes marginalized.
For example, Meta Platforms and Google affect the visibility and circulation pathways of information through labeling systems, moderation practices, and algorithmic governance. These companies may not directly define security risks in formal political terms, yet they significantly shape how such risks are perceived and distributed within digital environments.
The securitization of international communication is therefore not the product of a single actor, but rather the outcome of interaction among states, media systems, experts, and digital platforms.
5.Regional Variations in Securitization Pathways
Although similar trends can be observed globally, different regions exhibit distinct securitization pathways.
In the United States, communication-related issues are frequently linked directly to national security concerns. Policy responses tend to display a strong security orientation characterized by interagency coordination and close cooperation with digital platforms.
Within the European Union, securitization is more commonly institutionalized through legal and regulatory frameworks, such as the Digital Services Act. The European approach emphasizes platform responsibility, transparency, and procedural legitimacy, reflecting a governance model centered on rules and regulatory oversight.
Japan, by contrast, has generally adopted a more gradual approach that combines policy guidance with industry self-regulation. Compared with the United States and parts of Europe, the Japanese model tends to place greater emphasis on social stability and preventative governance.
Despite these differences, the broader trajectory remains consistent: communication is increasingly being incorporated into systematic security frameworks.
6.Structural Implications of Securitization
The securitization of international communication is reshaping the global information environment in profound ways.
On the one hand, it can strengthen governance capacity in response to genuine risks such as information manipulation and cross-border interference. On the other hand, it may also generate unintended consequences, including restrictions on information flows, declining cross-cultural understanding, and the gradual fragmentation of global information systems into competing geopolitical blocs.
Its deeper impact may ultimately emerge at the cognitive level. When information is persistently framed through the language of risk and threat, individuals are more likely to develop defensive cognitive structures and preemptive suspicion toward external information sources. Such dynamics may intensify misunderstanding rather than reduce conflict.
7.How Should This Trend Be Understood?
Understanding the securitization of international communication requires avoiding two simplistic assumptions.
The first is the belief that all securitization represents irrational overreaction. The second is the assumption that securitization is entirely objective or historically inevitable. A more balanced perspective recognizes securitization as the combined outcome of material risks, discursive construction, and institutional choice.
From this perspective, the central issue is not merely whether risks exist, but how risks are defined, who defines them, and whether those risks are selectively amplified or politically instrumentalized.
8.Conclusion
The securitization of international communication is not a temporary phenomenon. Rather, it constitutes part of a broader structural transformation of the global communication order.
Contemporary debates surrounding TikTok, as well as the increasing restrictions and scrutiny directed toward media organizations associated with different geopolitical blocs, demonstrate that information flows are becoming progressively integrated into national security considerations. The institutionalization of this trend is likely to continue.
For researchers and practitioners alike, the key challenge is not simply to support or oppose securitization, but to understand its operational mechanisms, identify its boundaries, and explore how a sustainable balance between security and openness might still be maintained.
Suggested Citation：
BI Yantao.“Information Is No Longer Just Information: The Accelerating Securitization of International Communication”. Communication Without Borders (CWB), May 9, 2026. Available at: https://www.borderlesscomm.com
