The aim of this research is to demonstrate the relationship between the discourse of security and the Democratic Rule of Law, seeking to delimit the current state paradigm, since it is attributed a diversity of meanings, thus being in a zone of uncertainty. Having delimited the content of the Democratic Rule of Law, we sought to understand the foundations and reflexes of the security discourse, which legitimises actions that can be seen on two levels: the first is the declared one where actions contrary to the Democratic Rule of Law are legitimised, an example is the Criminal Law of the Enemy, the second is veiled where rhetoric based on security is used to legitimise actions of the State of Exception in full force of the Democratic Rule of Law, in times of normality, using special powers to act without respect for certain fundamental rights and guarantees provided for in the Constitution.

Without clear limits and analysis of the foundations and objectives of the relationship between this security discourse and the Democratic Rule of Law, there is a chance of disrespect and, consequently, denaturalisation and denial of the paradigm of the Democratic Rule of Law. .