CIAO DATE: 08/2012
Volume: 8, Issue: 32
Winter 2012
CONTENTS (PDF)
The Study of Terrorism 10 Years After 9/11: Successes, Issues, Challenges (PDF)
Richard Jackson
This article surveys the field of terrorism studies since 9/11 and attempts to assess some of its main successes, perennial issues and future challenges. It suggests that terrorism studies has grown and matured in the decade since the attacks, in part through its rising popularity and institutionalization in new university teaching programs, a growing number of think tanks and research institutes, and scholarly activity in new networks and journals. While some of its successes include new dedicated scholars and researchers, improving standards of scholarship, and diversification of research and methodological approaches (including the rise of critical terrorism studies), a number of perennial issues continue to haunt the field. These include, among others: tendencies towards decontextualisation, de-historicisation and knowledge subjugation within the field; skewed research priorities; normative-political issues surrounding policy engagement and problem-solving; the lack of reflexivity and engagement with critical terrorism studies and other critical movements; and the low entry barriers to terrorism expertise and the rise of pseudo-experts. The article concludes with a discussion of some of the main challenges facing the field, such as avoiding a bifurcation into critical and orthodox intellectual ghettos, bridging the trans-Atlantic divide between scholars, negotiating the complex legal environment posed by domestic counter-terrorism legislation, developing standards and safeguards for primary research and integrating the relevant knowledge of cognate fields such as peace studies into the research and teaching of terrorism studies. Overall, the article concludes that it is an opportune time to be involved in terrorism studies and there reasons for being cautiously optimistic about the next decade of terrorism research.
'Old' vs. 'New' Terrorism: What's in a Name? (PDF)
Andreas Gofas
The question of “old” versus “new” terrorism has been debated vigorously. Proponents of “new terrorism” point to a radical transformation in the character of terrorism, while skeptics point out that today’s terrorism is not a fundamentally or qualitatively new phenomenon but grounded in an evolving historical context. In this paper I take stoke of the debate by means of juxtaposing ideal types of “traditional” and “new” terrorism along the axis of five distinguishing variables: organizational structure; operational range; motives; tactics; and attitude towards the Westphalian system. The analysis reveals several similarities, instead of rigid distinctions, that point in favour of evolution rather the revolution of terrorist activity. Article, thus, question both the analytical value and empirical veracity of “new terrorism”.
Defining the "New Terrorism": Reconstruction of the Enemy in the Global Risk Society (PDF)
Münevver ebeci
Employing the conceptual frameworks provided by Ulrich Beck and Carl Schmitt; this article argues that the reconstruction of the enemy in the global risk society reflects a reincarnation of a “crude” form of “the political”. As the powerful –the US– determines our knowledge on global terrorism, the global risk society itself becomes political, through the reconstruction of the enemy as inhuman and, thus, right-less: an enemy who should be captured and punished severely. This also refers to a deconstruction of the classical conception of war and its reconstruction as a special kind of war which involves the use and legitimization of measures that violate all rules of war, international law and human rights. This article concludes that attempts to define the “new terrorism” on positivist lines risk contributing to such reconstruction of the enemy and war, and, therefore, critical and poststructuralist approaches might offer more insight into understanding the post-9/11 world.
The Only Thing We Have to Fear: Post 9/11 Institutionalization of In-security (PDF)
Mitat Çelikpala, Duygu Özturk
During the last decade, billions of dollars have been spent to increase security measures in the United States. New institutions, including a department for homeland security, have been established, new security tools have been developed, and surveillance of Americans has been increased. However, despite the creation of ‘safety zones,’ neither the level of the Americans’ feeling of security from further terrorist attacks, nor their confidence in the ability of US governments to prevent attacks, has seen an increase. According to Beck, who introduced the concepts of ‘world risk society’ and ‘reflexive modernity’, terrorism is one of the products of reflexive modernity which cannot be addressed by traditional security measures. Within this framework, this paper analyzes the case of the Americans since 9/11 attacks. In this vein, it is argued that the gap which has arisen as a result of addressing non-territory and non-state-based terrorism through state-based security measures has caused a continuation of a high level of insecurity, fear, and anxiety among the Americans. Public opinion surveys conducted in the United States since the 9/11 attacks by various institutions are used to analyze Americans’ thoughts about security and the terror risk in the United States.
'War on Terror' and Hegemony: International Law-Making Regarding Terrorism After 9/11 (PDF)
Müge Kınacıoğlu
The focus of analysis in this article is the process of hegemonic law-making regarding terrorism utilizing unilateral power and the collective legitimization function of the UN. In order to explore how hegemony influences the development of international legal norms concerning the use of force and terrorism, the article examines the ways in which the United States as a prevailing actor in the international system has sought to translate its political power to develop a new norm of preemption and to impose international legal obligations on states with regards to the suppression of terrorism through the United Nations Security Council’s Chapter VII resolutions after September 11 terrorist attacks.
Is Terrorism Still a Democratic Phenomenon? (PDF)
Erica Chenoweth
In recent years, multiple studies have confirmed that terrorism occurs in democracies more often than in nondemocratic regimes. There are five primary groups of explanations for this phenomenon, including the openness of democratic systems, organizational pressures resulting from democratic competition, the problem of underreporting in authoritarian regimes, gridlock resulting from multiparty institutions, and the coercive effectiveness of terrorism against democracies. Most of these studies, however, examine the relationship only through 1997. In this article, I explore whether terrorism has continued to occur more in democratic countries through 2010. I find that while terrorism is still prevalent in democracies, it has increased in “anocracies,” countries that policymakers would often describe as “weak” or “failed” states. I offer a potential reason for this increase: the American-led occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. I conclude by offering some insights into how the rise of terrorism in anocracies affects the typical explanations for terrorism and democracy, and I suggest a few ways to improve on our current understanding.
Democracy as Counter-Terrorism in the Middle East: A Red Herring? (PDF)
Katerina Dalacoura
The shock of the 9/11 attacks had complex and profound effects on US policy in the Middle East. One result was the decision of George W. Bush’s administration to place the discourse of democracy promotion at centre stage in its policy towards the region. This decision was based on the notion that the spread of democracy would serve as antidote to the emergence of Islamist terrorism and enhance Western security. This paper challenges the assumption that the causes of Islamist terrorism can be solely or primarily reduced to the political factors of exclusion and repression. The paper then argues that, if authoritarianism is not the cause of Islamist terrorism, we must look elsewhere for an explanation. Economic and social causes are not the main issue at play here either. Far from seeing them as irrational actors driven by religious or millenarian motives, Islamist terrorists – similarly to most other terrorist organisations, with some exceptions - are rational and calculating in their choice of tactics. Promoting democracy as an antidote to terrorism must be replaced by alternative policies. If we accept that Islamist movements adopt terrorist tactics for instrumental or strategic reasons, effective counter-terrorism will start from the understanding that Islamist terrorists are rational actors, who will always make cost-benefit analyses with regards to the use of terrorist tactics.