Purpose
The gruesome attacks of 11 September 2001 signalled a powerful paradigm shift in international politics: governments previously accustomed to military menaces were now being increasingly threatened by independent, non-state actors. Consequently, a plethora of literature emerged, looking to better understand the nature of these actors. An aspect that has attracted substantial interest is the inter-relation between terrorism and organised crime (OC). This paper aims to answer the question as to whether, for the purpose of controlling and mitigating the threat they pose to society, there is meaning in differentiating between terrorist organisations (TOs) and organised crime groups (OCGs).
Design/methodology/approach
The first section of the paper will provide an account of the various kinds of threats posed by OCGs and TOs. The subsequent section will question whether it is possible, in today’s globalised era, to distinguish between these two actors, while the last sections will ask if such a differentiation is desirable.
Findings
OCGs and TOs display a clear divergence: the former’s motivation is financial while the latter’s political. With the end of the Cold War, however, each type of organisation has been building up the capabilities of the other, helped by the force of global networks. As such, these two actors now exist within the same body – a continuum – that renders their separation difficult. As to the question of desirability, the separation of the two phenomena has often led to the adoption of highly disproportionate militarised and securitised measures, resulting in a dangerous blending of law enforcement and security service methodology.
Originality/value
Many have argued for the separation of the “terrorist” from the “criminal”, on the grounds that the former is particularly heinous and deserving of more severe measures. Others have studied the evolution of these two phenomena to understand whether the lines separating them have been blurring and the extent to which this affects law-enforcement. This paper goes beyond notions of feasibility and poses the following question: has the traditional separation of these phenomena led to a desirable regime?
