Lastly it makes it harder to successfully pursue, prosecute and convict accused terrorist. A legally binding definition will thus give a clear understanding of what is being targeted. It is hard to come up with a legally binding definition because terrorism is a very subjective issue. The United Nation has found it difficult to achieve such feat precisely because each state has a different opinion in what they believe constitute terrorism. As George Bruce states in his article Definition of Terrorism: Social and Political effect, “Social structure and order, governance of society and politics are dependent on good communication, and good communication requires agreement on definit... ... middle of paper ... ...ot only gives states the ability to prosecute the terrorist under war crime laws but it also regulated the tactics a state can use in combating terrorism.
The United States, United Nations and all sovereign nations would need to take cooperative action that has never been accomplished. Terrorism, its' history, concepts, reasoning, methods, and financial roots are object of this research. 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.
This essay explained settings for terrorism, reasons for terrorism, and individual motivation and participation. All three of which made me think of the America before the constitution, before equal rights were assured to all individuals. These privileges did not come for free; we had to fight for them. In settings for terrorism, the author talked about subgroups of larger populations that may be discriminated against, or suppressed and not given equal opportunity for political participation. These particular situations may be conducive to terrorist organization and activity.
From this claim the author believes that a nation whose number one priority is security, may in fact, create policies that make the state a terrorist itself. Through this idea, Amgaben believes that nations should no longer look to the creation of reactionary policies, but rather preventative measures to stop terrorism before it happens. These claims shed light on the fact that many countries don’t prepare for terrorism. They merely react as a result of terrorist acts being carried out by organizations whose policies and ideologies misalign with that of the state. Furthermore, because of this misalignment, reactionary policies put into effect by nation states in fact make the state a terrorist.
The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today, and the hero of yesterday becomes the terrorist of today . There is then a great need to know what contemporary terrorism is and what it is not. Terrorism is a calculated use of power to achieve a political change, thus violence – or equally important, the threat of violence – is used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of a political aim . Terrorism is an expression of political strategy, a willful choice made by an organization for political and strategic reasons (efficacy) rather than as the unintended outcome of psychological or social factors . However, terrorism is difficult to define because the meaning of the term has changed so frequently over the past 200 years.
Another point of co... ... middle of paper ... ...o the terrorists are and what their goals are.  It is important to see the difference between ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ terrorists. Terrorist with political goals that are obtainable may be open to negotiations and a path towards nonviolent resolutions whereas terrorists with ideological goals (often religious in nature) may not be open to negotiations, and certainly not without inciting further violence and terrorist activity. Works Cited 1] Harmonie Toros.”We Don’t Negotiate with Terrorists! : Legitimacy and Complexity in terrorist Conflicts.” Security Dialogue 39 (2008): 407-426.
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.
As Machiavelli implies, "The [state] is expected to devise his own, 'new,' remedies if the old ones will not suffice"(Parel, 10). Surprisingly, the solution to this proverbial problem is found in one of the most traditional and perhaps, polemical political ideologies. The most promising pr... ... middle of paper ... ...In order to successfully combat terrorism, the United States must adopt a modified mindset similar to that of the terrorists. Specifically, it must begin see the world as a fight between good versus evil.
However, this model emphasizes on nation-state, where terrorism can be built as a powerful threat. Even realists have often ignored terrorism, favoring on the notion that crime-fighting, which can be addressed by nation states. Thus, the structural realist idea can be applied to internal and external terrorism. An argument that, “Understanding international organized crime and terrorism in terms of networks has become a widely accepted paradigm in the field of international relations" (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2008). Such a terrorist group, al-Qaida has a worldwide network, and their local and global goals would be different.
Terrorism: Impediments to International Cooperation International cooperation in regard to thwarting terrorism leaves much to be desired. This relates to a number of problems. First, there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. Without such a definition it is difficult or even impossible to put in place policies and laws that will affect international cooperation and the ultimate reduction or elimination of terrorism. Second, too much perverse incentive exists for those that turn a blind eye to terrorism.