Terrorism and Counterterrorism
Book: Bakker, E. (2015). Terrorism and Counterterrorism Studies. Comparing Theory and
Practice. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Chapter 1 - Definition and nature of terrorism
Terrorism is a highly complex, highly subjective and politically sensitive topic. Terrorism
can be described as international acts of violence or threats of violence by a non-state actor,
and meeting two of the following three criteria:
1. The violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal;
2. The violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey
some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate
victims; and
3. The violent act was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law
Terrorism is a strategic threat – seriously challenging the existing political and social order –
in only limited number of countries. How many victims there are because of terrorist attacks
highly depends on the definition that someone gives to it.
Data of the GTD gives a good overview of the magnitude of the physical threat of terrorism.
But there are other ways to measure the seriousness of terrorism. By combining the data of the
GTD – in particular the number of fatalities and injuries – with the amount of property
damage, the Global Terrorism Index provides a broader picture of the consequences of
terrorism.
Terrorism ranks high on the political agenda of many countries. It is considered one of the
most important and pressing security issues that requires the full attention of politicians and
policy makers. After 9/11 some extreme measures have been taken. Security at airports has
increased significantly. Think about the liquids that you are allowed to take with you,
Biometric passports, airline passenger data that is collected, stored and exchanged by the US,
EU Member States and third countries. Because of this, a lot questions have been asked
regarding civil liberties human rights. The measures have received criticism linked to
1
,fundamental questions about their legitimacy and proportionality. Others have pointed to
issues related to efficiency and effectiveness or unwanted negative side effects of
counterterrorism.
Major terrorist attacks, like 9/11, can lead to more and more far-reaching new
counterterrorism legislation. We can say that there is a trade-off between security and human
rights. In order to try to achieve a certain level of security, state actors are increasingly willing
to compromise on fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression, the right to privacy.
This is the reason why certain organizations and in particular NGO’s have stressed that there
must be more attention given to the balance between protecting human rights and the right
and duty of the State to protect their citizens from terrorism.
The words we use to describe terrorist attacks depends on political views, languages, cultures
etc. In the past, certain violent acts, which we might nowadays call acts of terrorism, were not
labeled as such. It depends on what side you look at it. Take for example the term ‘freedom
fighters’. While the authorities labeled these people as terrorists, the local population can see
them as honorable defenders who rebel against an oppressor. “One man’s terrorist is another
man’s freedom fighter”. The media plays an important role in attributing the labels ‘terrorism’
and ‘terrorist’. By using emotional and denigrating labels, media are able to influence the
perception of their audience and shape public opinion. The term terrorism has changed over
the years. The use of the term is very subjective.
In a book of Alex Schmid, we can read four reasons why there is no generally accepted
definition for terrorism:
1. Terrorism is a contested concept and political, legal, social science and popular
notions of it are often diverging it has a strong emotional and moral undertone,
which makes it difficult to apply to specific events or groups. For one individual, a
certain attack can be considered as a terrorist attack, but by another person it can be
seen as a freedom fighter.
2. The definitions question is linked to (de-) legitimization and criminalization
terrorist organizations are delegitimized and criminalized as they are registered on
national or international lists of designated terrorist organizations. Once an
organization is listed it is considered to be a criminal organization. This gives
governments a number of instruments to combat it. Governments and international
2
, organizations are put under pressure by other governments, lobby groups or activists
to list or delist certain groups.
3. There are many types of terrorism with different forms of manifestations Europol
identifies five different ideological strands of terrorism: (a) religiously-inspired
terrorism, (b) ethno nationalist and separatist terrorism, (c) left-wing and anarchist
terrorism, (d) right-wing terrorism, (e) single issue terrorism. A sixth could be attacks
by groups or individual with a very vague political idea or ideology. A seventh could
even be State terrorism/regime terrorism.
4. The term had undergone changes of meaning in the more than 200 years of its
existence
However it is very important to have a common definition of terrorism and it would be
extremely valuable from both an academic and a societal perspective. The need to reach a
common definition is manifest in three different areas:
1. The dimension of international cooperation: in order to achieve success within the
international domain, states need to agree on what terrorism consists of. Countries
have to work together to deal with terrorism. International cooperation, like for
example sharing terrorism-related data, requires a certain level of consensus on what
terrorism is. A universal legal definition of terrorism and consensus as to which
groups to label terrorist and which would not be highly beneficial to international
cooperation.
2. The legal dimension: there is the need to develop a common definition on the exact
nature of terrorism. When terrorism is not strictly defined it can open the political
space for government agencies to use the term in a way which suits their special
interests. For instance, by labelling demonstrations or other types of political action as
terrorism, authoritarian regimes are able to silence all kinds of opposition groups.
3. The academic dimension: researchers in the field of terrorism studies are often
confronted with different definitions that, for instance, hamper comparative studies. A
common definition could improve the quality of research since studies then could be
compared to each other. As long as there is no common definition, and one research
paper has another definition of terrorism then the other, it is very hard to compare
different studies with each other.
3
Book: Bakker, E. (2015). Terrorism and Counterterrorism Studies. Comparing Theory and
Practice. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Chapter 1 - Definition and nature of terrorism
Terrorism is a highly complex, highly subjective and politically sensitive topic. Terrorism
can be described as international acts of violence or threats of violence by a non-state actor,
and meeting two of the following three criteria:
1. The violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal;
2. The violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey
some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate
victims; and
3. The violent act was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law
Terrorism is a strategic threat – seriously challenging the existing political and social order –
in only limited number of countries. How many victims there are because of terrorist attacks
highly depends on the definition that someone gives to it.
Data of the GTD gives a good overview of the magnitude of the physical threat of terrorism.
But there are other ways to measure the seriousness of terrorism. By combining the data of the
GTD – in particular the number of fatalities and injuries – with the amount of property
damage, the Global Terrorism Index provides a broader picture of the consequences of
terrorism.
Terrorism ranks high on the political agenda of many countries. It is considered one of the
most important and pressing security issues that requires the full attention of politicians and
policy makers. After 9/11 some extreme measures have been taken. Security at airports has
increased significantly. Think about the liquids that you are allowed to take with you,
Biometric passports, airline passenger data that is collected, stored and exchanged by the US,
EU Member States and third countries. Because of this, a lot questions have been asked
regarding civil liberties human rights. The measures have received criticism linked to
1
,fundamental questions about their legitimacy and proportionality. Others have pointed to
issues related to efficiency and effectiveness or unwanted negative side effects of
counterterrorism.
Major terrorist attacks, like 9/11, can lead to more and more far-reaching new
counterterrorism legislation. We can say that there is a trade-off between security and human
rights. In order to try to achieve a certain level of security, state actors are increasingly willing
to compromise on fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression, the right to privacy.
This is the reason why certain organizations and in particular NGO’s have stressed that there
must be more attention given to the balance between protecting human rights and the right
and duty of the State to protect their citizens from terrorism.
The words we use to describe terrorist attacks depends on political views, languages, cultures
etc. In the past, certain violent acts, which we might nowadays call acts of terrorism, were not
labeled as such. It depends on what side you look at it. Take for example the term ‘freedom
fighters’. While the authorities labeled these people as terrorists, the local population can see
them as honorable defenders who rebel against an oppressor. “One man’s terrorist is another
man’s freedom fighter”. The media plays an important role in attributing the labels ‘terrorism’
and ‘terrorist’. By using emotional and denigrating labels, media are able to influence the
perception of their audience and shape public opinion. The term terrorism has changed over
the years. The use of the term is very subjective.
In a book of Alex Schmid, we can read four reasons why there is no generally accepted
definition for terrorism:
1. Terrorism is a contested concept and political, legal, social science and popular
notions of it are often diverging it has a strong emotional and moral undertone,
which makes it difficult to apply to specific events or groups. For one individual, a
certain attack can be considered as a terrorist attack, but by another person it can be
seen as a freedom fighter.
2. The definitions question is linked to (de-) legitimization and criminalization
terrorist organizations are delegitimized and criminalized as they are registered on
national or international lists of designated terrorist organizations. Once an
organization is listed it is considered to be a criminal organization. This gives
governments a number of instruments to combat it. Governments and international
2
, organizations are put under pressure by other governments, lobby groups or activists
to list or delist certain groups.
3. There are many types of terrorism with different forms of manifestations Europol
identifies five different ideological strands of terrorism: (a) religiously-inspired
terrorism, (b) ethno nationalist and separatist terrorism, (c) left-wing and anarchist
terrorism, (d) right-wing terrorism, (e) single issue terrorism. A sixth could be attacks
by groups or individual with a very vague political idea or ideology. A seventh could
even be State terrorism/regime terrorism.
4. The term had undergone changes of meaning in the more than 200 years of its
existence
However it is very important to have a common definition of terrorism and it would be
extremely valuable from both an academic and a societal perspective. The need to reach a
common definition is manifest in three different areas:
1. The dimension of international cooperation: in order to achieve success within the
international domain, states need to agree on what terrorism consists of. Countries
have to work together to deal with terrorism. International cooperation, like for
example sharing terrorism-related data, requires a certain level of consensus on what
terrorism is. A universal legal definition of terrorism and consensus as to which
groups to label terrorist and which would not be highly beneficial to international
cooperation.
2. The legal dimension: there is the need to develop a common definition on the exact
nature of terrorism. When terrorism is not strictly defined it can open the political
space for government agencies to use the term in a way which suits their special
interests. For instance, by labelling demonstrations or other types of political action as
terrorism, authoritarian regimes are able to silence all kinds of opposition groups.
3. The academic dimension: researchers in the field of terrorism studies are often
confronted with different definitions that, for instance, hamper comparative studies. A
common definition could improve the quality of research since studies then could be
compared to each other. As long as there is no common definition, and one research
paper has another definition of terrorism then the other, it is very hard to compare
different studies with each other.
3
