Counterterrorism and International Law

This chapter is an attempt at assessing the overall response provided by the international community, and the main normative strategies pursued by international law in countering international terrorism. To find concrete ways in which the coordination of norms and institutional policies can lead to the implementation of an effective holistic approach to fighting terrorism is the challenge lying ahead for the international community. The chapter argues that respect for human rights and the rule of law may play a central role in this process, by contributing to its legitimacy and increasing its chances of efficacy and stability in the long term. The other new challenge and the real paradigm shift, particularly at times of increasing terrorist violence, lies in thinking of counterterrorism as a precondition for economic growth and sustainable development.

Counterterrorism Strategies

This chapter offers a comparison of eight counterterrorism strategies and instruments, many of which overlap or are pursued simultaneously: (1) crushing terrorist groups directly with massive force; (2) targeting terrorist leaders for death and arrest; (3) relying on allies to strike terrorist groups; (4) containing the terrorist group to limit its effectiveness and encourage internal divisions; (5) improving defenses against terrorism; (6) delegitimating the group’s cause; (7) conciliating terrorists; and (8) going after supposed root causes of terrorism. It examines the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and identifies some of the conditions under which it is most likely to be effective. It concludes by offering recommendations for further research.

Terrorism in Latin America

Although the study of terrorism in general is rife with definitional disagreements and overlap of different types of violence, the study of terrorism in Latin America is especially challenged by these issues. There are few sources of cross-nationally comparable violence data and it is difficult to differentiate terrorism from other types of violence. Violent actors are frequently categorized in multiple categories, ranging from gangs to guerrilla. A subnational analysis is recommended to take into account divergent levels of development, violence, and state presence within countries. This approach is necessary to understand violent groups in Latin America that not only differ by front or faction, but also to examine groups that either straddle multiple categories of violence or fall in the gaps between them.

Suicide Terrorism

Since the phenomenon of modern suicide terrorism first emerged in Lebanon in the early 1980s it has increased exponentially in both number and geographical range. However, despite this spike and the concomitant surge in its study, there is still no real clear consensus on key issues. As a result, explanations remain imprecise and unevenly developed and datasets continue to remain incomplete and/or incompatible. This chapter outlines some key controversies that plague the study of suicide terrorism including the debates surrounding the use of terminology as well as key definitional issues. Having outlined these main controversies, this chapter then sheds light on what is perhaps the central puzzle for scholars studying this phenomenon, i.e. the rationality underpinning a suicide attack

The Crime–Terror Nexus and its Fallacies

The focus on organized crime, illicit economies, and the multiple threats they pose to states and societies intensified after 9/11, when it became obvious that belligerent groups, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria, derived extensive financial profits and other benefits from participating in illicit economies. The conventional view of the crime–terrorism nexus holds that in order to defeat insurgents, it is necessary to take away their money by suppressing the illegal economy, such as by eliminating drug smuggling or eradicating poppy fields. Yet policy interventions to combat organized crime and illicit economies—whether linked to violent conflict or in the absence of one—have rarely been highly effective. Eradication alienates rural populations from the government and thrusts them into the hands of the insurgents. Conversely, partnering with quasi-criminal actors has often turned out to be counterproductive with respect to other objectives, such as mitigating violent conflict, fostering good governance, and promoting human rights, and at times even counterproductive with respect to very direct objectives, such as weakening criminal groups and their linkages to terrorist organizations. Thus, as much as external actors may condemn tacitly or explicitly permitting illicit economies, such practices are often crucial for winning hearts and minds and ending conflict or for giving belligerent groups a stake in peace. Development-based policies aimed at reducing illicit drug production are crucial for avoiding such negative side-effects while maximizing the chance for peace and social justice.

Terrorism, Civil War, and Insurgency

Much of the terrorism occurring worldwide is domestic terrorism carried out by rebel groups fighting in civil wars. However, many are reluctant to categorize domestic insurgencies as terrorist groups or to identify the tactics used by domestic insurgencies as terrorist tactics. Through a survey of the literature addressing the relationship between terrorism and civil war, I contend that research on the dynamics of violence in civil war would benefit from a more standardized definition of the concept of terrorism as well as greater consensus on how the concept of terrorism ought to be used in relation to the concept of civilian targeting. The lack of conceptual clarity in distinguishing between terrorism and civilian targeting makes it difficult to compare research findings, and thus to make progress as a field in our understanding of the causes of violence and its consequences. Despite the challenges associated with making comparisons across studies, this chapter attempts to do precisely this, drawing on research on terrorism as well as research on civilian targeting to develop insights on the causes and consequences of terrorist violence employed in the context of civil war.

State Terrorism

Seeing official violence as unduly neglected, “critical terrorism studies” scholars have pushed hard for state terrorism to become a central concern of the emergent field of “terrorism studies.” Although laudable in intention, such critiques have been blunted in their impact by path dependency in how state violence has conventionally been studied. Some examples such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union have indeed been relatively well explored by scholars. Yet these truly spectacular examples are only a small part of the historical picture of state violence—and against that wider backdrop they appear highly aberrational. Any systematic attempt to understand the complexity of inter-relationship between state and non-state violence must develop both far greater historical awareness and sociological discernment.

Critical Approaches to the Study of Terrorism

Critical approaches to the study of terrorism do not inquire into the causation of political violence. Rather, the umbrella term “critical” encompasses a large variety of methodologies which reject the positivist philosophy of science. This chapter explores the meaning of “critique” as an epistemological alternative to positivist models of knowledge. It shows how “critical” approaches do not ask “what causes terrorist violence,” but rather how societies have come to a point where they identify “terrorism” as a distinct form of violence, separate from “war” and “crime.” What makes terrorism “sensible”? How do we “know” terrorism as a concept or form? Drawing from long philosophical traditions, critical approaches explore how power, culture, and linguistics have constituted the concept of “terrorism”—creating a reality which is not “obvious” or common-sense, but contingent and arbitrary. The chapter then outlines the critical method of “discourse analysis” and its use in constructivist analyses of the War on Terror.

Historical Approaches to Terrorism

While many have considered terrorism to be a uniquely modern phenomenon, a review of terrorism over time indicates it has deep historical roots. Historical cases include violence in the late Roman Republic, the Zealots in Roman Judea, anti-colonial attacks against the British, Dutch, and Spanish in Asia, the prelude to the American Revolution, the Reign of Terror in France, and eventually the more modern manifestations and uses by nationalist or ethnic groups, extremists drawn from most religious traditions, leftist dissidents including the anarchist, and right-wing extremists including the Fascists and Nazis after World War I as well as the Ku Klux Klan in the United States. While terrorism has been present for centuries, there have been significant changes. Police and security forces have increased in quantity and quality, but terrorists have gained access to more lethal techniques and weapons.

Psychological Approaches to the Study of Terrorism

As an academic discipline, psychology would appear to be well-suited to the study of terrorist behavior. Terrorism, after all, involves statistically and socially abnormal behavior that is routinely associated with acts of extreme violence. Psychological analysis extends not only to those who engage in acts of terrorism, but to those affected by terrorism both near and far. It seems odd then that psychology has not embraced the study of terrorism in the same way that other disciplines have. This chapter explores the history and development of psychological research on terrorism and reflects on its progress to date before offering modest suggestions for future areas of enquiry. Though psychological research on terrorist behavior, the author argues, remains underdeveloped, the chapter concludes with a sense of optimism about the exciting potential that may be derived from a more fully developed psychology of terrorism.