Cook, Alistair D. B., and Mely Caballero-Anthony. "NTS framework". In Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Issues, Challenges, and Framework for Action, edited by Alistair D. B. Cook and Mely Caballero-Anthony, 1-14. Singapore: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, 2015.

Cook, Alistair D. B., and Mely Caballero-Anthony. "NTS framework". In Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Issues, Challenges, and Framework for Action, edited by Alistair D. B. Cook and Mely Caballero-Anthony, 1-14. Singapore: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, 2015.

• Over the best several decades, the security threat of interstate conflict has gone down precipitously. At the same time, however, the security risks from non-state actors and a range of non-military security threats has increased (1). 
• In Asia, this transition towards recognition and management of non-traditional security threats has occurred in the context of the rapid spread of infectious diseases like H5N1 and SARS, transnational crime, and major natural disasters, like the tsunamis in 2004 and 2011 (1-2).
• The position of the state as the primary referent of security has been increasingly challenged in Asia, particularly after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, which called attention to security issues among the poor and the need to consider human security (3-4).
• Since it was first introduced in a 1994 UNDP reform, the concept of 'human security' has been subjected to fierce criticism, particularly on the claim that it defines security too broadly and makes the concept meaningless and overly broad (4).
• The idea of 'human security' itself falls under three broad interpretations: the UNDP position that it is broad and comprehensive, the Japanese position that it demands a social safety net, and the Canadian and Norwegian position that it refers to reducing the human costs of war and armed conflict (4).
• The rise of non-traditional security issues in Asia has resulted in greater cooperation among states, including through the construction of new institutions as predicted by the liberal and neoliberal institutionalist schools of IR theory (2). The non-military nature of these threats has both facilitated and demanded greater international cooperation (3).
• The authors define 'non-traditional security issues' as non-military security issues that are transnational in scope and thus require an international response and understanding of the issues (6).
• The major questions in the fields of security studies are: What is the security threat or issue area? What actors are doing the securitization? What or who is the referent object that needs to be protected? How are speech acts used to securitize an issue? How do different concepts of security affect each other? How are issues linked together in political understanding? And what role do stakeholders play in securitization (6-8)?
• The authors also analyze specific cases of securitization and security institutions using the analytical categories of participation, fairness and accessibility, transparency, responsiveness, consensus-based decision-making, equity and inclusivity, effectiveness and efficiency, and accountability (9-11).