Is “State terrorism” a valid concept?
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
…show more content…
For instance, UN representatives from the Sixth Committee had collectively advocated for a legally binding definition of terrorism; however, the majority of countries had insinuated that terror acts are carried out by individuals or non-state groups – not the state (United Nations, General Assembly: GA/L/3276, 2005). The assembly had representatives from Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Algeria, Sri Lanka, China, United Arab Emirates, San Marino, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso, Belarus, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, Brazil, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Sierra Leone and Japan. Within the assembly only two countries, Sudan and Libya, had spoken against all actors of terrorism, including state-terrorism; both of which had recently experienced state led
This paper will talk about three different types of terrorism. A background of each type will be provided to understand the motivations and goals. The first type that will be discussed is religious terrorism. The second type that will be discussed is suicide terrorism. The third and last type that will be discussed is nationalist terrorism. Each type of terrorism has distinct differences in their goals, motivations, strategy, use of violence, etc. However, the main focus of this paper will be on the difference between each type’s tactics and/or strategy.
Kash, Douglas A. “An International Legislative Approach to 21st-Century Terrorism.” The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium. Ed. Harvey W. Kushner. London: Sage Publications, 1998.
State terrorism is terrorism from above meaning that it is committed by governments against perceived enemies. It can be both external meaning international or internal meaning domestic. State terrorism is the official support by governments for policies of violence, repression, and intimidation. It is directed against enemies that the state has determined to be a threat against its interests or securities. State terrorism utilizes many types and degrees of violence to include warfare, genocide, assassinations, and torture. Warfare is the use of conventional military forces of the state against an enemy, whether the enemy is external or internal or a conventional or guerrilla combatant. Genocide is where the state uses its resources towards the elimination of a group. It does not differentiate between enemy combatants or enemy civilians, they are all considered enemies. Assassinations are selective applications of homicidal state violence where a single person or a select group of people are designated for elimination. Torture is an instrument of intimidation, interrogation, and humiliation that is also used on a select person of group of people. There are se...
There are many differing definitions of terrorism. What is terrorism? How do we define it? Why is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? These are just a few of the questions that face the world on a daily basis. There are many challenges that face the international community when it comes to how to define terrorism and what it constitutes. This paper will explore the challenges facing scholars when it comes to labeling terror and discuss potential ways to properly define it.
During the 21st Century acts of domestic and international terrorism have significantly increased. Thus the international community of nations has the challenge to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime. The challenge at present is for the international community of nations to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime (Lawless, 2008). In fact, terrorism is an international crime it requires the international community to act in the prevention of terrorism and the sanction of individuals perpetrating acts of terrorism(Lawless, 2008). The September 2011 attack on the United States has presented an opportunity for the internationalist forces to come to the forefront of the global political agenda. ...
Defining terrorism has remained a highly contentious terrain with even International organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations finding it extremely difficult to build and develop a consensus upon .But different scholars have attempted to define this concept:
The quest to establish a universal definition of terrorism is entangled in questions of law, history, philosophy, morality, and religion by nature, a subjective one that eludes large-scale consensus. Terrorism is defined differently by different countries, nations and even department’s federal or state law enforcement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (NIJ).
The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism as, “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”. Whereas the Belgium Red Cross says that terrorism is committed “for the purpose of intimidating the population, forcing a third party to act or destablishing or destroying the fundamental structures of a country or of an international organization”.
In early 1974, the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, invited the Palestinian Liberation Organization to attend the General Assembly gathering on November 13, 1974, and in doing so gave legitimacy to the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a governing body. In Yasser Arafat’s speech to the General Assembly, he thanked the United Nations for recognizing his organization and its legitimacy. When Arafat addressed the General Assembly, he made the argument that the actions taken by his government were not acts of terrorism, but these were acts of revolution and their purpose was to regain control of Palestine’s occupied original territory. The problem we confront is, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism and the international community should be able to come up with one. The major hurdle in defining is the states’ ideas of what terrorism is.
writer of the article “A World Made More Dangerous as Terrorism Spreads” scrutinizes wrote in his article activity in the world and identifies the countries that are involved.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks, but instead the result of partisan advancement. Acts of terrorism have been around throughout the evolution of mankind. Terror attacks have even been traced back as far as the religious roots of an ancient middle east (Ross, Will Terrorism End?, 2006). However as man evolved, so did terrorism. Today’s extremism involves some of the main characteristics of ancient terrorism, but much more developed. Political advancement is no longer the root cause of terrorism acts. Instead influxes of “holy” wars have been appended the prior definition of terrorism. Mistakably modern terrorism has been confused for Political violence with political objectives, but research will establish that the nature of terrorism is fundamentally different from other forms of political violence.
Since the end of the Cold War, dramatic emerging shifts in the focus of international relations, from the world superpowers, have veered to that of terrorism and counterterrorism. Terrorism and in/direct threats to the order of international stability of sovereign states did not come to the forefront of significance and study until the 20th century with the events occurring on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and the U.S. Pentagon. Immediately following these traumas, there “began a reorientation in foreign policy towards weak and failing states” (Skuldt, n.d., p. 1). The world of academia has traditionally focused on international relations as a discipline, with a sub-categorization on foreign policy. Historically, terrorism was not study specific. Focus on foreign policy allows for further exploration of policy analysis, theory and prescripts; however, the study of terrorism has been dotted through these areas disallowing the formulation of a concise framework for analysis. Because of these factors, building theories that focus on the connections between the two subjects has been difficult; and yet, in our current global society, they are critical. “Terrorism has [in fact] become a mode of doing politics” (Skuldt, n.d., p. 2) and can no longer merely be a subset to other areas of research and analysis.
The word terrorism was first used during the French Revolution from the reign of terror inflicted by the French from 1784-1804 ("International Affairs"). It was used to describe the violent acts perpetrated on the French that inflicted terror on the various peoples and instilled fear within them. However, at the time it had a more positive connotation than the term that instills fear today. During the French Revolution this was because it referred to state-sponsored terrorism in order to show the need of state instead of anarchy, sometimes promoted by other groups (Hoffman 2). Therefore, even though terrorism has taken a new nature, terrorism can refer to official governments or guerrilla groups operating outside national governments ("International Affairs"). In order to encompass terrorism’s various sectors and explain it to the public, in both positive and negative aspects, many analysts have tried to put it into a few words. Terrorism is a method used by tightly of loosely organized groups operation within states or international territories that are systematic in using deliberate acts of violence or threats in order to instill...
Terrorism is one of the major ways to carry out violence either to prove a point or just to cause harm. Since 9/11, terrorism has been on the increase and the lack of a firm definition does not help solve the issue. To understand the ultimate purpose of terrorism, this essay will be looking at the concept of terrorism and why violence has to be used to prove a point in a state. It will also be looking at how many states are able to maintain their stand after a terrorist attack (using US and 9/11 as an example) as well as the destabilization it has caused in the state. Finally, it will argue how their goal may be the ultimate end for the attacked state.