Kritik yang dilontarkan terhadap mazhab Kopenhagen adalah pendekatannya yang terlalu eurosentris terhadap keamanan.[2] Kaum realis juga berpendapat bahwa perluasan agenda keamanan mazhab Kopenhagen akan menciptakan "ketidakselarasan intelektual" dalam studi keamanan.[3]Lene Hansen mengkritik tidak adanya gender dalam pendekatan mazhab Kopenhagen.[4] Kritikus lainnya berfokus pada peran analis keamanan dan sifat konservatif mazhab Kopenhagen.[5]
↑Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Pub.
↑Wilkinson (2007) The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe?, Security Dialogue March 2007 vol. 38no. 1 5-25
↑Hansen, Lene (2000) 'The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School',Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 29: 285-306
↑See Huysmans, ‘Revisiting Copenhagen’; Johan Eriksson, ‘Observers or Advocates?: On the Political Role of Security Analysts’, Cooperation and Conflict 34, no. 3 (1999): 311-3; and Giovanni Arcudi, ‘La Sécurité Entre Permanence et Changement’, Relations Internationales, no. 125 (2006): 97-109
Bacaan lanjutan
Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver & Jaap de Wilde (1998), Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienne
Bill McSweeney, ‘Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen school’, Review of International Studies, 22:1 (1996) 81-93.