The aim of the present thesis is to investigate the securitization movement of trauma promoted by the United Nations and the World Health Organization in post conflict peace-building processes. Our claim is that this movement is developed according to an interpretation that takes the psychological well being of war survivors as a priority and that understands trauma as a threat to the consolidation of a sustainable peace in post conflict scenarios. Trauma is thus interpreted as a mental disease which characterizes war survivors as vulnerable beings who cannot manage themselves and their own lives. This condition would demand the intervention of UN and WHO to help them control their emotions and recover their health in order to be able to function as good citizens. The intervention has been done among the many peace-building activities which aim the promotion of social reconciliation and is formalized via psychosocial programs which search to treat and cure war traumas. Theoretically, we focus on the importance of discourse practices in international security studies according to constructivist lenses that are, nonetheless, supplemented by insights from international political sociology which we find useful to promote an overall understanding of securitization movements. In this sense, our claim is that (in)securitization is related not only to the speech act that enunciate a politics of exception but it also involves an expanded analytical framework that understands the exception moment connected to a transnational bureaucracy network and private agents which work at the management of the (in)security. Yet the international political sociology offers important insights which allow the comprehension of a securitization movement that takes the individual as a referent and that develops mechanisms of management of emotions and behaviors as a form of medicalized social control. Thus, our assertion is that contemporary western societies are based on a therapy culture that is informed by many actors and that permeates the UN and WHO discourses which reinforce a conception of risk that interprets the individual subjects as passive and powerless towards their daily challenges. Based on the critic description methodology, we seek to demonstrate the underlying logic in the UN and WHO discourses about mental health and trauma to highlight the contradictions inside them and between these discourses and the psychosocial practices developed in post conflict scenarios. Our final purpose is to point out the predominance of a conception of mental health in the discourses of these Organizations that privileges a western interpretation about the relation of the individuals with their emotions and violence and that marginalizes or silences the role of local culture values in the social reconciliation processes in these communities.