Security Studies year 2
Summaries Terrorism/Counterterrorism readings
Week 1
1. 1 Charles Tilly, ‘Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists,’ Sociological Theory 22, no. 1 (2004): 5-
13.
Defining terror
The word terror itself entered the West’s political vocabulary as a name for French
governmental repression, mostly directly in the form of executions. Since, the word has
expanded in scope. Civil war practices as ethnic cleansing and genocide also receive the
designation terror.
we can identify some order in the phenomenon via four steps:
1. Noticing that a recurrent strategy of intimidation occurs widely in contentious politics
2. Recognizing that a wide variety of individuals, groups, and networks sometimes
employ that strategy
3. Relating the strategy systematically to other forms of political struggle proceeding in
the same settings and populations
4. Seeing that specialists in coercion sometimes deploy terror under certain political
circumstances.
US State Department definition
“politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience”.
Tilly notes the disadvantage of any such definition: It requires information on motivations
and intentions; solid evidence on motivations and intentions rarely becomes available for
collective violence.
In addition to whatever harm terrorism inflicts directly, it sends signals that:
the target is vulnerable
the perpetrators exist
, the perpetrators have the capacity to strike again
The signals typically reach three different audiences:
the targets themselves
potential allies of the perpetrators
third parties that might cooperate with each other
Terror and specialists in coercion
Autonomists stand for all those politically active groups whose members sometimes launch
terror attacks on authorities without becoming durable organized specialists in coercion.
Zealots maintain similar connections with each other but commit their violent acts outside of
their own base territories.
Militias maintain enduring organizations of coercive specialists and exercise terror within
their base territories.
Conspirators organize specialized striking forces for operations away from base.
1. 2 Boaz Ganor, ‘Defining terrorism: is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom
fighter?’, Police Practice and Research 3, no. 4 (2002): 287-304.
There can never be an agreed definition on terrorism because one man’s terrorist
another man’s freedom fighter. It depends all on the look of the definer. But there are
people who find a definition of terrorism necessary (but it must serve their political ends).
According to Ganor both ideas are wrong; and they will hinder the fight against terrorism. A
normative definition of terrorism would be ‘the deliberate use or the threat to use violence
against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims’. Aims of terrorism
and guerrilla warfare can be identical, because they are fighting for a ‘worthy goal’. Except of
course when you deliberately target civilian populations, does not matter what the legitimacy
or justice is, the ends do not justify the means. By carrying out terrorist attacks, perpetrators
make themselves enemies of all mankind. It should be internationally agreed that nations do
not support terrorist organizations even if they agree with their goals. States should try to
force the groups to adopt guerrilla warfare tactics rather than terrorism, because terrorism
brings more harm than good.
,Can countries/organizations be held responsible for carrying out terrorist acts? It is
unnecessary to call sovereign states acts as criminal because of UN conventions; attacks
against citizens during wartime is a war crime and attacks against citizens during peace times
are crimes against humanity. But organizations are not prohibited from perpetrating actions
that are illegal and abhorrent if carried out by sovereign states. If we narrow down the
definition of terrorism to only include deliberate attacks on civilians, you create a fair fight
between guerrillas and state armies. With a moral distinction applied terrorist organizations
will have another reasons to renounce terrorism in favour of guerrilla actions.
If you combine 109 definitions of terrorism you get this; Violence and force, political, fear
with an emphasis on terror, threats, psychological effects, discrepancy between targets and
victims, intentional planned and systematic organized actions, and methods of combat.
Some terrorist tried to present terrorism and political violence as two different/unconnected
phenomena. Some argue that terrorist activities ≠ struggle of national liberation. This is
especially the case in the Arab world. They try to justify the means (terrorism) with the end
(national liberation). But this is still allowing terrorist to kill non-combatants. . A terrorist
organization can also be a movement of national liberation, and the concepts of ‘terrorist’ and
‘freedom fighter’ are not mutually contradictory.
Instead of using the term innocent you have to use the term civilian because parties will
always have a different viewpoint on who is innocent or who isn’t.
The definition proposed here states that terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to
use, violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims,
based on 3 elements; (1) the essence of the activity – the use of, or threat to use, violence,
(2) the aim of the activity is always political – namely, the goal is to attain political
objectives, and (3) the targets of terrorism are civilians.
The definition of guerrilla warfare is; a violent struggle using violence against military
targets, security forces, and the political leadership, in order to attain political aims. But
some see terrorism and guerrilla warfare as the same concept. Organizations can choose to
switch from terrorism to guerrilla warfare and vice versa.
States involvement in terrorism, states can be involved in various ways; support of terrorist
organizations, operational assistance, directing attacks, perpetration of terrorist acts by state
, agencies à state sponsored terrorism. 3 levels of involvement; states supporting terrorism,
states operating terrorism, and states perpetrating terrorism. The last one is a war crime
in times of war instead of terrorism.
Because terrorism is an international phenomenon, the response should also be
international. To have an effective strategy, nations should agree on a definition.
Without a definition you cannot; (1) create legislation and punishment, (2) have
international cooperation, (3) state will continue sponsoring terrorism, (4) states
offensive action will be difficult, (5) attitudes towards supporting terrorism could stay
positive, (6) without a normative definition it will be hard to undermined the legitimacy
of terrorist organizations.
Terrorist will likely not accept the definition; it only matters if states would agree with it. If
there is an international definition between terrorism and guerrilla warfare it could motivate
perpetrators to reconsider their intentions. Because of the moral considerations and the cost
benefit consideration.
1. 3 Harmonie Toros, ‘“We don’t negotiate with terrorists!”: legitimacy and complexity in
terrorist conflicts’, Security Dialogue 39, no. 4 (2008): 407-426.
A lot of governments have pledged to never talk to terrorists. Why don’t they do that? It’s
because it would legitimize terrorist groups.
One of the main arguments put forward by scholars against engaging with terrorists is that
such a course of action would legitimize the terrorists, their goals and, most of all, their
means. The very act of naming a group or action as terrorist is partly aimed at
delegitimizing the group. But giving a group the terrorist label can polarize them, forcing
moderate voices to choose between accepting the ‘terrorist’ label and thus engage in illegal
actions or abandon their activism altogether. Legitimacy is ‘socially constructed’ in that it
reflects a congruence between behaviours of the legitimated entity and the shared beliefs of
some social group.
How can legitimizing terrorist groups change their behaviour? (1) negotiations eliminate
one of the reasons terrorists engage in violence, (2) it may strengthen the faction in the
Summaries Terrorism/Counterterrorism readings
Week 1
1. 1 Charles Tilly, ‘Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists,’ Sociological Theory 22, no. 1 (2004): 5-
13.
Defining terror
The word terror itself entered the West’s political vocabulary as a name for French
governmental repression, mostly directly in the form of executions. Since, the word has
expanded in scope. Civil war practices as ethnic cleansing and genocide also receive the
designation terror.
we can identify some order in the phenomenon via four steps:
1. Noticing that a recurrent strategy of intimidation occurs widely in contentious politics
2. Recognizing that a wide variety of individuals, groups, and networks sometimes
employ that strategy
3. Relating the strategy systematically to other forms of political struggle proceeding in
the same settings and populations
4. Seeing that specialists in coercion sometimes deploy terror under certain political
circumstances.
US State Department definition
“politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience”.
Tilly notes the disadvantage of any such definition: It requires information on motivations
and intentions; solid evidence on motivations and intentions rarely becomes available for
collective violence.
In addition to whatever harm terrorism inflicts directly, it sends signals that:
the target is vulnerable
the perpetrators exist
, the perpetrators have the capacity to strike again
The signals typically reach three different audiences:
the targets themselves
potential allies of the perpetrators
third parties that might cooperate with each other
Terror and specialists in coercion
Autonomists stand for all those politically active groups whose members sometimes launch
terror attacks on authorities without becoming durable organized specialists in coercion.
Zealots maintain similar connections with each other but commit their violent acts outside of
their own base territories.
Militias maintain enduring organizations of coercive specialists and exercise terror within
their base territories.
Conspirators organize specialized striking forces for operations away from base.
1. 2 Boaz Ganor, ‘Defining terrorism: is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom
fighter?’, Police Practice and Research 3, no. 4 (2002): 287-304.
There can never be an agreed definition on terrorism because one man’s terrorist
another man’s freedom fighter. It depends all on the look of the definer. But there are
people who find a definition of terrorism necessary (but it must serve their political ends).
According to Ganor both ideas are wrong; and they will hinder the fight against terrorism. A
normative definition of terrorism would be ‘the deliberate use or the threat to use violence
against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims’. Aims of terrorism
and guerrilla warfare can be identical, because they are fighting for a ‘worthy goal’. Except of
course when you deliberately target civilian populations, does not matter what the legitimacy
or justice is, the ends do not justify the means. By carrying out terrorist attacks, perpetrators
make themselves enemies of all mankind. It should be internationally agreed that nations do
not support terrorist organizations even if they agree with their goals. States should try to
force the groups to adopt guerrilla warfare tactics rather than terrorism, because terrorism
brings more harm than good.
,Can countries/organizations be held responsible for carrying out terrorist acts? It is
unnecessary to call sovereign states acts as criminal because of UN conventions; attacks
against citizens during wartime is a war crime and attacks against citizens during peace times
are crimes against humanity. But organizations are not prohibited from perpetrating actions
that are illegal and abhorrent if carried out by sovereign states. If we narrow down the
definition of terrorism to only include deliberate attacks on civilians, you create a fair fight
between guerrillas and state armies. With a moral distinction applied terrorist organizations
will have another reasons to renounce terrorism in favour of guerrilla actions.
If you combine 109 definitions of terrorism you get this; Violence and force, political, fear
with an emphasis on terror, threats, psychological effects, discrepancy between targets and
victims, intentional planned and systematic organized actions, and methods of combat.
Some terrorist tried to present terrorism and political violence as two different/unconnected
phenomena. Some argue that terrorist activities ≠ struggle of national liberation. This is
especially the case in the Arab world. They try to justify the means (terrorism) with the end
(national liberation). But this is still allowing terrorist to kill non-combatants. . A terrorist
organization can also be a movement of national liberation, and the concepts of ‘terrorist’ and
‘freedom fighter’ are not mutually contradictory.
Instead of using the term innocent you have to use the term civilian because parties will
always have a different viewpoint on who is innocent or who isn’t.
The definition proposed here states that terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to
use, violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims,
based on 3 elements; (1) the essence of the activity – the use of, or threat to use, violence,
(2) the aim of the activity is always political – namely, the goal is to attain political
objectives, and (3) the targets of terrorism are civilians.
The definition of guerrilla warfare is; a violent struggle using violence against military
targets, security forces, and the political leadership, in order to attain political aims. But
some see terrorism and guerrilla warfare as the same concept. Organizations can choose to
switch from terrorism to guerrilla warfare and vice versa.
States involvement in terrorism, states can be involved in various ways; support of terrorist
organizations, operational assistance, directing attacks, perpetration of terrorist acts by state
, agencies à state sponsored terrorism. 3 levels of involvement; states supporting terrorism,
states operating terrorism, and states perpetrating terrorism. The last one is a war crime
in times of war instead of terrorism.
Because terrorism is an international phenomenon, the response should also be
international. To have an effective strategy, nations should agree on a definition.
Without a definition you cannot; (1) create legislation and punishment, (2) have
international cooperation, (3) state will continue sponsoring terrorism, (4) states
offensive action will be difficult, (5) attitudes towards supporting terrorism could stay
positive, (6) without a normative definition it will be hard to undermined the legitimacy
of terrorist organizations.
Terrorist will likely not accept the definition; it only matters if states would agree with it. If
there is an international definition between terrorism and guerrilla warfare it could motivate
perpetrators to reconsider their intentions. Because of the moral considerations and the cost
benefit consideration.
1. 3 Harmonie Toros, ‘“We don’t negotiate with terrorists!”: legitimacy and complexity in
terrorist conflicts’, Security Dialogue 39, no. 4 (2008): 407-426.
A lot of governments have pledged to never talk to terrorists. Why don’t they do that? It’s
because it would legitimize terrorist groups.
One of the main arguments put forward by scholars against engaging with terrorists is that
such a course of action would legitimize the terrorists, their goals and, most of all, their
means. The very act of naming a group or action as terrorist is partly aimed at
delegitimizing the group. But giving a group the terrorist label can polarize them, forcing
moderate voices to choose between accepting the ‘terrorist’ label and thus engage in illegal
actions or abandon their activism altogether. Legitimacy is ‘socially constructed’ in that it
reflects a congruence between behaviours of the legitimated entity and the shared beliefs of
some social group.
How can legitimizing terrorist groups change their behaviour? (1) negotiations eliminate
one of the reasons terrorists engage in violence, (2) it may strengthen the faction in the
