The definitional dilemma of terrorism : seeking clarity in light of terrorism scholarship (original) (raw)
Related papers
Defining terrorism: philosophy of the bomb, propaganda by deed and change through fear and violence
Criminal Justice Studies, 2004
The idea that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' has led to the erroneous conclusion that defining terrorism is, in the final analysis, a subjective activity about assigning negative connotations to one's opponents and positive connotations to one's proponents. Terrorism, both as practiced and justified by terrorist themselves, is a tool used to achieve a specific outcome by using force or violence on one segment of society with the primary goal of causing fear in the larger society to make change in that society. This article will review the historical development of the use of terror and demonstrate that regardless of the actor, all terrorists share the common belief that terror is a tool of change. The desired change, the chosen target, and the justification of the use of terror can be specific to the society and the perpetrators. The goal of this paper will be to show the common strands of uniformity of the understanding of terror as a tool of change through history. Though there are differences between terrorists and waves of terror, the utility of terror is not different.
Introduction: Constructions of Terrorism
Constructions of Terrorism, 2019
Constructions of terrorism emanate from a wide range of sources. Governments and international organizations create criminal laws and administrative lists defining who is a terrorist or what acts constitute terrorism. In society, discussions among its members and the press play a major role in how the words terrorism and extremism are used and applied, which in turn influences public understanding and government policy. Terrorist groups themselves contribute to these constructions through the rationales and justifications they use for their actions. Today we are seeing the continual reference to terrorism in everyday language, government policy, news reporting, and international diplomacy and from various groups and uprisings. With the term being used to describe a wide range of violence, it is difficult to formulate effective government responses aimed at prevention and eradication. It further makes things difficult in societal settings for creating conducive environments for reconciliation. This volume seeks to establish appropriate research frameworks for understanding how we construct understanding(s) of terrorism. From the perspective of countering terrorism and extremism, if there is not a well-developed understanding of the object of these frameworks, they will not be effective. Assessments of the literature of terrorism have revealed consistent and troubling shortcomings. Lum, Kennedy, and Sherley and Andrew Silke carefully examined studies of terrorism published over the previous decades and the great explosion of terrorism research after 9/11. 1 The most germane findings about terrorism and counterterrorism research in their two studies help frame the contributions that have been reviewed here. The first finding is that most of the publications on terrorism have been contributions by scholars who were relatively new to the subject. These scholars discovered terrorism as a problem, usually after a particularly
In this paper, a two-fold strategy is carried out for gaining conceptual clarity in response to the question: What is terrorism? The first stage is to defend a broad working definition of terrorism that emphasizes the instrumental employment of terror or fear to obtain any number of possible ends. As proposed in this paper, Terrorism is an act or threat of violence to persons or property that elicits terror, fear, or anxiety regarding the security of human life or fundamental rights and that functions as an instrument to obtain further ends. This instrumentality relies upon either an explicit or implicit threat of separate acts of future violence. It is argued that such a functionalist approach to defining terrorism captures the core qualities that unite the broad family of both political and nonpolitical terrorist actions. At the same time, the proposed definition avoids the problems associated with other approaches that either focus upon the terrorist’s ‘unconventional’ tactics, or the ‘innocence’ of their targets, or their coercive intentions. The breadth of the proposed definition allows for the more nuanced typological analysis in the second stage. The typology is primarily an analysis of the modes of terrorism’s instrumentality. Thus, the broad phenomenon of terrorism is divided according to factors of targets, the degree of force employed, agency, and the geographic context of the action. It is only by drawing out the diverse types of terrorism that the projects of morally evaluating terrorism and formulating a just response to terrorism can take place in a concrete and meaningful way.
This draft paper is a phenomenological, critical and ontological examination of the idea of terrorism and the notion of a terrorist act. The paper looks at the ideological foundations of terrorism, and the presentation of terrorism and terrorist acts in media and communication in language and discourse. More particularly, there is a specific examination of the ontology and phenomenology of the term through four lenses: terrorism as performance, terrorism as ritual embodiment, terrorism as a double-sided experiential phenomenon, and terrorism as political discourse linked to power. There is also emphasis on terrorism as reflecting a clash of worldviews and value systems throughout the paper. The paper also discusses radicalisation and deradicalisation.
Reconstructing the normative definitions of terrorism
Jigyasa: An Interdisciplinary refereed Research Journal , 2018
The threat of international terrorism is a real one. The word terrorism itself is capable of unleashing a sense of immense fear. The existential crisis that it is capable of generating can draw attention away from all the other issues facing mankind. It creates a sense of urgency and immediate danger to the survival of individuals. All the other issues regarding economy, development, climate change, become irrelevant when the actual fear for survival strikes. This fear has escalated at an alarming rate in the recent times.
Reference Services Review, 1990
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in human life. It existed during Biblical times when Joseph, the seventeen-year-old son of Jacob, was kidnapped and sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. Although terrorists have been active throughout history, it is only recently that we have seen an increase in scholarly interest in the phenomenon of terrorism. One reason for this is the fact that terrorist activities have increased dramatically since the 1960s. Everyday we read in the newspapers and hear on radio and television details of the latest terrorist outrage. Many American colleges and universities now offer a course or two on terrorism as a part of their curriculum. Since terrorism has become an attractive topic of study for social scientists, especially political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists, the literature has grown so large that readers cannot absorb it all. The subject has been approached from almost every conceivable angle. Studies have been made of terrorist organizations, terrorist personalities, terrorist tactics, and specific terrorist incidents. Some authors have looked at the subject from an historical perspective, while others concentrate on the political, psychological, or sociological aspects. There are books and articles on the behavioral aspects of the problem as well as the implications of terrorist acts on domestic and international law. This essay presents selected current readings on the subject of terrorism. It includes books, periodicals, encyclopedias and dictionaries, directories, bibliographies, and database files in the English language dating from 1985 to the present. The literature has been classified into eight broad categories: definition of terrorism, general works on terrorism, psychological aspects of terrorism, religious aspects of terrorism, combating terrorism, periodicals, online databases, and bibliographies. Definition of Terrorism Although the use of terror has been around since early human history, arriving at a comprehensive and definitive definition of the word "terrorism" is virtually impossible. The reason for this is that the terms pertaining to terrorism are constantly changing depending on from which side of the ideological spectrum they are viewed. Fortunately, several reference sources have defined the term from different points of view. John Richard Thackrah, in Encyclopedia of Terrorism and Political Violence (1987), states that "terrorism has neither a precise definition nor one which is widely acceptable. The imprecise nature of the term means that it can be applied to almost any set of fear-producing actions to serve a variety of purposes. More generally, it can General Works on Terrorism Countless general studies on terrorism provide a definition, history, and analysis of the subject.
2016
Reaching an agreed definition of terrorism has proved problematic, with over 100 different working definitions counted. Consensus stumbles particularly on issues of legitimacy, assessing reasons behind the violence and whether a state can commit acts of terrorism - or whether they are to be excluded as they have the monopoly on legitimate violence. Greater empirical research and independence in terrorism scholarship is required to formulate an agreed definition. States should not be exempt from terrorism as part of a broader movement excluding any consideration of the motives or causes cited as the reason for the attack. The definition should focus on the nature of the act, not the philosophy behind it. For even if the cause or grievance is understandable, and can be reasonably argued with a defence of necessity, that does not mean the violence undertaken should cease to be illegal and inhumane. The ends must be separated from the means. Clarity of definition is crucial for counter-...
The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism
2004
This analysis begins by exploring various reasons that the concept of terrorism has evaded a widely agreed upon definition for so long despite the efforts of so many writers. Emphasis is placed on the difficulties associated with all “essentially contested concepts.” In addition, the investigation calls attention to such problems as conceptual “stretching” and “traveling.” In an effort to solve the difficulties, the inquiry attempts to determine a consensus definition of terrorism by turning to an empirical analysis of how the term has been employed by academics over the years. Specifically, the well-known definition developed by Alex Schmid, based upon responses to a questionnaire he circulated in 1985, is compared with the way the concept has been employed by contributors to the major journals in the field: Terrorism, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, and Terrorism and Political Violence. The 22 “definitional elements” of which Schmid's definition is composed are compared to the frequency with which they appear in the professional journals. If these elements appear frequently in both the Schmid definition and those employed by the journal contributors, they are then used to form a consensus definition of the concept. The most striking feature of this academic consensus over the meaning of terrorism is the virtual absence of references to the psychological element, heretofore widely thought to be at the heart of the concept.
Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism
Terrorism and political violence, 2004
Terrorism has been situated-and thereby implicitly also defined-in various contexts such as crime, politics, war, propaganda and religion. Depending on which framework one chooses, certain aspects of terrorism get exposed while others are placed 'outside the picture' if only one framework is utilised. In this article five conceptual lenses are utilised: 1. terrorism as=and crime; 2. terrorism as=and politics; 3. terrorism as=and warfare; 4. terrorism as=and communication; and 5. terrorism as=and religious fundamentalism. TERRORISM AS=AND CRIME 1 Most, if not all activities commonly perpetrated by terrorists, are considered illegal if not always illegitimate by the international community. Typical expressions of terrorist violence such as indiscriminate bombings, armed assaults on civilians, focused assassinations, kidnappings, hostage-taking and hijacking are considered criminal offences in national or international laws. While the criminal nature of acts of terrorism is widely accepted, most observers acknowledge the presence of political motives underlying certain terrorist activities. The two categories-crime and politics-do not exclude each other, as is exemplified by the concept of 'political crime', which exists in some legal frameworks. The motive or intent of a crime might be 'political', but the act itself is considered 'criminal'. It is worthwhile to recall what exactly a 'crime' is. Crime has been defined as 'the intentional commission of an act usually deemed The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent positions of the United Nations where the author serves as Senior Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer in the Terroism Prevention Branch of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna.