War & Peace, Terrorism and International Security Study Guide

War and Peace

  • The negative conception of peace: Absence of war/violence
  • The positive conception of peace: More than the absence of violence: Peace consist of harmonious relationships between individuals and groups
  • Pacificism: A belief in the possibility of making peace a more durable and robust feature in human relationships, both locally and globally, and in its ethical desirability as something that ought – morally – to be the object of human endeavour. example: many war justifiers can also be pacificists, they believe that some wars are justified, but nevertheless they strive to make it less likely that wars will actually occur, and commend such striving as duty.
  • Peace Dividend: After the Cold War was over general tough of Peace Full Era which aims to increase aid to reduce world poverty


Just war tradition:

  •  Morally right to go war
  •  Just cause (Not for gain or power but restore wrong)
  •  Legitimate authority ( State)
  •  Last resort
  •  Rules of fighting ( Take care prisoners/ non killing civilians/ Destroy the army not the nation)


Liberal Peace: Influenced by western believes

  • –  Liberal Peace: Institutional (int’l governance & guarantees)
  • –  Constitutional (democracy & free trade)
  • –  Civil (freedoms and rights)
  • –  But also, Victor’s peace
  • Constructivism: Change ideas of people & statesàChanges behavioràLead cooperation 
and change.

  • Post-structuralism: Replacement of dominant structures
  • Jus ad bellum (what is just before the war, reasons to go to war)
  • By a state
  • Just cause
  • Right intention
  • Jus in bello (what is just during the war, soldiers, civilians, POWs, Discrimination, Proportionality)


Jus post bellum (what is just after the war, not vengeance, treatment of looser side)

  • Militarism is often associated with the rise of fascism like Mussolini in Italy.
  • –  Militarists are prone to go to war, because war is perceived as a positive thing in it self. It makes 
men out of men and creates unity, to name few positive things.

Internationalism: Peace of Westphalia 1648: formalized what is called the international system or nation-state system.

Preservation of the international ORDER of STATES.

It is grounded in the right to sovereignty and the legitimacy of states using military force both to defend themselves and to defend the society of states itself when challenged by acts which threaten international security.


Cosmopolitanism: ideology that all human beings belong to a single community, based on a shared morality, economical relationship and political structure. Idea of form of relationship of mutual respect. 

Global citizenship as a commitment to global ethic or possessions of a universal moral status

Modern Cosmopolitanism: a non-dogmatic cosmopolitanism focused primary in building institutions of peace, the conditions of development and the principle of respect for diversity of cultures. Support only a limited number of military activities.

What is characteristic of many cosmopolitans is a conception of the world where peace is dominant and while organized violence (war) may sometimes be justified, in practice such occasions are rare.

Kantianism – Global ethical order – “Perpetual peace” is needed for communities to flourish

Utilitarianism – Maximization of happiness

Pacifism & nonviolence have served to indicate ethical positions in which violence is rejected as a way of responding to violence.

  • All waging of war is morally wrong, a.k.a. anti-warism.

Contemporary Wars

  1. Intra-state (government vs non-gov, or non-gov vs non-gov)
    1. About state formation
    2. About state control
    3. Failed states – violence in absence of power (warlords in Somalia)
  2. Privatization War (with many non-state actors)
  3. Civilization of Casualties (civilians are targeted, atrocities against civilians are used as instruments to achieve the goal)
  4. Wars with no defined end point

Human Security

Security of:

  • Economy
  • Food
  • Health
  • Environment
  • Personal
  • Community
  • Political
  • We should change the importance of territorial security to people’s security

Idealist contributions to the debate on peace: more ambitious than realism, more nuanced and pragmatic than often argued to be. Its legacy drew the discipline, and indeed policy, away from narrow and extreme forms of tragic realism, and instead offered rational approaches to the construction of a liberal peace.

This means that peace could exist as not only an ideal form (which used to mean that it was therefore unlikely ever to exist at all) but instead that peace could be constructed, albeit in a reasonably limited, but cosmopolitan form.

International law dealt with states, until human rights (cosmopolitan norm) was institutionalized. 

English School


By contrast to realism, liberal thinking represented a much more complex peace system requiring social, political and economic organization, across several levels of analysis. 

Liberal peace:

  • set of common pragmatic elements and institutions. It required a
  • hegemon who would construct the peace in its image:
    • rights for all of its actors would be delineated, provided, enforced and patrolled,
    • according to a set of core values, based on
      • just war thinking,
      • self-determination and democracy,
      • international law and an embryonic form of human rights,
      • norms of cooperation and consent.
    • creation of institutions and safeguards to protect key norms and to provide for individuals, so cementing a social contract which preserves the polity.

Human nature is not intrinsically violent and, even if it is, social norms, regimes and organization can prevent violence.

constitutional peace based on democracy, cosmopolitanism and free trade.

civil peace which gave rights and agency to individuals (advocacy, campaigning, social movements, self-determination and democratization).

institutional peace through international frameworks, legal, normative and organizational (& international law).

The key aims of pacifism have generally been to stop or prevent war through the creation of a climate favorable to peace, and dealing with the potential causes of conflict inherent in such factors as socioeconomic competition, ethnic identity, religion, culture, the quest for power and far of foreign domination.

Idealism provided the foundation for this move, which came to be enshrined in the liberal–international system that was emerging after the Congress of Vienna at an institutional level and influenced the emergence of international law and human rights. Idealism offered the intellectual ideal of a form of peace, which liberalism enshrined in a Lockean social contract and a Kantian international system of peace.


Hans Morgenthau six principles of political realism:

1. Politic’s, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature which is unchanging: therefore it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects these objective laws.

2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power which infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political realism stresses the rational, objective and unemotional.

3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid but not with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. Power is the control of man over man.

4. Political realism is aware of the moral signifigance of political action. it is also aware of the tension between moral command and the requirements of successful political action.

5. Political realsim refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. It is the concept fo interest defined in terms of power that saves us from the moral excess and political folly.

6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere. He asks “How soes this policy affect the power of the nation?” Political realism is based on a pluralistic conception of human nature. tA man who was nothing but “political man” would be a beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral restraints. But, in order to develop an autonomous theory of political behavior, “political man” must be abstracted from other aspects of human nature.

International Security


Agency Structure Debate

Securitization to an Emancipation

Audience: it consists of a group (public opinion, politicians, military officers, or other elites) that needs to be convinced that a referent object is existentially threatened

Biopolitics: Michael Foucault, 1975. State claim its legitimacy on its capacity to make populations live. State increasing into the field of providing for health care, education and well-being.

Constructivism: is basically a theory — based on observation and scientific study — about how people learn. It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. is the claim that significant aspects of international relations are historically and socially constructed, rather than inevitable consequences of human nature or other essential characteristics of world politics 

Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics. (Wendt, 1992) not given by nature and hence, capable of being transformed by human practice

they are given their form by ongoing processes of social practice and interaction

that the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature

Securitization (Copenhagen School): By talking security an actor tries to move a topic away from politics and into an area of security concerns thereby legitimating extraordinary means against the socially constructed threat. The process of securitization is intersubjective meaning that it is neither a question of an objective threat or a subjective perception of a threat.[citation needed] Instead securitization of a subject depends on an audience accepting the securitization speech act.

who securitizes (Securitizing actor), on what issues (threats), for whom (referent object), why, with what results, and not least, under what conditions (Wæver in 1995)

Securitize: Speech act that elevates an issue with the objective of making it critically important.

Securitized issue: An issue is securitized when it requires emergency actions beyond the state’s standard political procedures.

Securitizing actor: Refers to an actor who initiates a move of securitization through a speech act. Securitizing actor can be policy-makers or bureaucracies but also transnational actor and individuals.

Critical Security Studies: academic discipline within security studies which rejects mainstream approaches to security. Questioning knowledge that was taken for granted. Critical to orthodox security studies. Challenge state sovereignty equals security.

Against Positivism – Facts are not neutral or value free. Always interpretation. Observer can not claim he is detached from society because he is part of it.

Critical Theory forms the base for social change – progress.

The test for a social theory is its capacity for fostering emancipation. Impossibility to separate between the subject and the object. Against state-centric.

Objective of Critical Theory: improve human condition through elimination of injustice.

Denaturalized: Why the state should exist in the first place. It’s not a natural thing.

Traditional Social Science (accepts the world as it is. Problem solving theory.)

Emancipation: freeing of people from the structures of oppression o dominance in which they find themselves.  

Politics: aim of enhancing security through emancipatory politics. Security is the absence of threats.

He continues that if security means the absence of threats and if emancipation is the “freeing of the people from physical and human constraints”, “security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin” (Booth 1991:319). freeing of people from those physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely chose to do.

Economic Security: is the condition of having stable income or other resources to support a standard of living now and in the foreseeable future. It includes: probable continued solvency. predictability of the future cash flow of a person or other economic entity, such as a country.

End of history (Fukuiama, 1992)

Environmental Security: the assurance that individuals and groups have that they can avoid or adapt to environmental change without critical adverse effects.

Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Same rights and opportunities.

Gender: about sex, refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women and also refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.”

Guerrilla: a member of a small independent group taking part in irregular fighting, typically against larger regular forces.

Human Security: Emphasizes the safety and well-being of individuals, groups and communities as opposed to prioritize the state and its interests.

Liberalism is a combination of beliefs that reject power politics, and relies on international cooperation and shared interests between actors in order to shape state preferences and international relations. Liberalists believe that international institutions play a key role in cooperation among states.[4] With the correct international institutions, and increasing interdependence (including economic and cultural exchanges) states have the opportunity to reduce conflict (Kant 1795)

Non-traditional security: Non-traditional security issues are challenges to the survival and well-being of peoples and states that arise primarily out of non-military sources, such as climate change, resource scarcity, infectious diseases, natural disasters, irregular migration, food shortages, people smuggling, drug trafficking and transnational crime. These dangers are often transnational in scope, defying unilateral remedies and requiring comprehensive – political, economic, social – responses, as well as humanitarian use of military force.

Paris school of security studies: Draws especially on the theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Michael Foucault to establish an approach that studies the discursive and non-discursive practices through which especially bureaucratic agencies construct insecurity and unease in their competition for tasks and control. Technologies of surveillance and control are much emphasized, especially in the study of issues such as migration and terrorism.

Peacebuilding is an intervention that is designed to prevent the start or resumption of violent conflict by creating a sustainable peace. Peacebuilding activities address the root causes or potential causes of violence, create a societal expectation for peaceful conflict resolution and stabilize society politically and socioeconomically. It includes a wide range of efforts by diverse actors in government and civil society at the community, national and international levels to address the root causes of violence and ensure civilians have freedom from fear (negative peace as a fundamental human right according to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.), freedom from want (positive peace, right to an adequate standard of living) and freedom from humiliation before, during, and after violent conflict.

Poststructuralist / structuralism: Every understanding of international politics depends upon abstraction, representation and interpretation. The world is not ready-made categories, theories, or statements. If we utilize any concepts (anarchy, the end of the Cold War, globalization) to grasp the meaning, we are engaging in three terms above.


Foucault: knowledge is power.

It highlights the relationship between knowledge and Power.

Focus on identity, subjectivism, and power.

Realpolitik is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of power and on practical and material factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises.

Referent object: the thing to be protected. It is generally considered to be the state. But also could be individuals, societies, economies and the environment.

Reflectivism is a counter-position to rationalism, where constructivists, feminists, poststructuralists, critical theorists, and moral theorists, among others, argue that state identities and interests are not given or stable but produced and reproduced continuously. Norms and identity shapes policy as much as material interests. Often reflectivits theories will posit understanding rather than science-like explanation as the aim of research.

R2P (Responsibility to protect): The State carries the primary responsibility for the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

The international community has a responsibility to assist States in fulfilling this responsibility.

The international community should use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State fails to protect its populations or is in fact the perpetrator of crimes, the international community must be prepared to take stronger measures, including the collective use of force through the UN Security Council.

Social Science: is an approach that assumes that fact and value can be separated sufficiently to generate theoretically grounded hypotheses that can be tested against evidence. In other words, description (what is), explanation (why it is), and prescription (what should be) are treated as separable.

State Security: A condition where the institutions, processes, and structures of the state are able to continue functioning without the threat of collapse or significant opposition, despite threats to the current regime or changes to the make-up of the ruling elite.

Gender Security: To address violent conflict and insecurity effectively it is critical to understand the different roles that women, men, boys and girls play in preventing, resolving and perpetuating conflict – and the different impacts it has on them. Conflict also disrupts the social interactions of everyday life – changing the roles men and women play and how they relate to each other in society. This interaction between gender and conflict has major implications for how we should think about conflict, security and opportunities for peace.

Structural Violence: It refers to a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Hunger and poverty are two prime examples of what is described as “structural violence,” that is, physical and psychological harm that results from exploitive and unjust social, political and economic systems.

Traditional Security: The state, and especially its defense from external military attacks, is the exclusive focus of study.

Peacebuilding and State buildind: What is known as ‘peacebuilding’ may have to be realigned more towards a model of statebuilding that reflects local power politics. While the international community should not compromise on the importance of humanitarian considerations, it may have to jettison some of the liberal-institutionalist agenda.

The Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations at a summit meeting in New York on Friday lay out a sweeping vision for improving the lives of people all over the world over the next 15 years. X Millennium Development Goals. 169 targets to reach by 2030. 17 goals.

  1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
  2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.
  3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
  4. Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning.
  5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
  6. Ensure access to water and sanitationfor all.
  7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
  8. Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all.
  9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.
  10. Reduce inequality within and among countries.
  11. Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
  12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
  13. Take urgent action to combat climate changeand its impacts.
  14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.
  15. Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss.
  16. Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies.
  17. Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

Unlike the Millennium Development Goals, which were largely assigned in a top-down manner in New York and Geneva, the SDGs were conceived more democratically after three years of deliberation by a group of representatives from 70 countries. In addition to government representation, there was a high-level panel that included representatives from civil society, the private sector and academia, alongside local and national governments. In fact, the U.N. conducted thelargest consultation in its history to shape the SDGs. These conversations included thematic and national discussions in addition to door-to-door surveys that sought feedback from a variety of stakeholders.

Every Country (Sustainable Development Goals) X Developing countries (Millennium Development Goals)

Calling for a new type of civic engagement that isn’t limited to elections and includes citizens in local governance and political decision-making.

Human Security: emphasize the welfare of ordinary people

(1) economic security (e.g., freedom from poverty);

2) food security (e.g., access to food);

(3) health security (e.g., access to health care and protection from dis- eases);

(4) environmental security (e.g., protection from such dangers as envi- ronmental pollution and depletion);

(5) personal security (e.g., physical safety from such things as torture, war, criminal attacks, domestic violence, drug use, suicide, and even trafc accidents);

(6) community security (e.g., survival of traditional cultures and ethnic groups as well as the physical security of these groups); and

(7) political security (e.g., enjoyment of civil and political rights, and freedom from political oppression).

Narrow view of security: poverty, health, education, political freedom, and democrracy

Human Security (HS) is a critical security theory that places the individual at the center of the security discourse and takes a holistic approach to the constitution of threats.

Broad and Narrow school of HS: reconciliatory perspective on the ‘broad vs. narrow’ debate within the HS school. On the one hand, it has emphasized the necessity of upholding the principles of the broad HS conception and explained why compromising the HS original approach is unacceptable. On the other hand, it has acknowledged the importance of exploring narrow HS conceptions in order to make use of HS strategies and alleviate the suffering of the needy even today, at a time when the world’s most powerful leaders are unwilling to embrace the entire HS theory as the leading approach to global security.


Definition of terrorism:

  1. First, a key element of an act of violence defined as terrorist is that it is politically motivated.  
  2. The act has a highly symbolic or communicative component.   ‘it is communication to an audience which is the important element of terrorist violence, not necessarily publicity’.
  3. it targets civilians, non-combatants or those who are innocent. This, of course, is part of the symbolic message and the communication of terror.
  4. is a legal designated war taking place? If it’s not and the is an attack, it’s a Terrorist attack.
  5. Strategies and techniques which non-state groups utilize in order to make political gains in a given sphere. Groups which have relatively few resources available to them often need to resort to methods that give them a sense of presence out of proportion to their numbers, and asserts them to increase their political leverage.  

Categories of Terrorism Chart “Old vs “New”

Many of these discussions were originally prompted by several terrorism incidents that took place in the 1990s, including the 1993 World Trade Center attack in New York.

Goals Political Goals Unclear Motives
  Clear Motives Untenable
Lethality and Methods Restrained Targeting. Conventional weapons Increased and indiscriminate. WMD
Religion Motivation Not the main motive Main motivation
Sponsorship Given by other states No need. Can finance themselves
Organizational Centralized and hierarchical Decentralized with networks
Propaganda Limited / Underground Mass communication through social media
Scope Territorial Global
Ideology Yes No

Is Terrorism exaggerated in US?

Yes. (Mueller, 2006) Why?

Media (cultural and economic): Terrorism, War, tragedy sells.

Law Enforcement (economic): Higher budgets (more equipment and resources) if there is a threat to deal with and an enemy to attack

Military (economic): Same as above. Keep huge budgets to fight the war on terror (Military Industrial Complex)

The Government (politics): Can keep law that control and restrict the population as an excuse to be fighting terrorism. Mass surveillance. No dual process. Can target other political dissident groups. Just overall, easier to government.

Is Terrorism the Result of Root causes such as Poverty and Exclusion?

Human behavior: aggression is the outcome of frustration.

Aristotle famously pronounced, ‘poverty is the parent of revolution and crime’.  

It is impossible to separate the political implications of the term ‘terrorism.’

Two possible explanations of terrorism: insanity or factors of social structural imbalances, poverty and exclusion are ‘root causes’ of terrorism depends, ‘terrorism’ and ‘root cause’.

Can poverty and exclusion contribute partially to causing terrorism? We say yes,

(political, economic, social, cultural)

Perceived inequality X absolute poverty.

Is Religious Extremism a Major cause of Terrorism?

Catastrophic evolution, the process by which sudden contact between different cultures leads to a rapid decline in diversity, including religious diversity.

Irgun: Jew terrorist group in Palestine during the 1940’s

We have rejected the simplistic idea that religion causes terrorism and instead explored a more complex and subtle relationship between the macro processes of fractured globalization, sudden contact and catastrophic evolution.

To answer these questions requires an account of how terrorism might in principle be explained, assuming that no single cause or set of causes is likely to provide an adequate explanation for all cases.  

We have seen that religion may matter in a number of ways for the states and political groups that employ terrorism, but that religion is not the primary cause of terrorism. That cause is civilian support for armed actors – usually oppressive governments – and the goal of terrorism is to induce civilians to stop supporting (politically, economically and militarily) those armed actors.

Why Orthodox?

What is terrorism?

How does it work?

How do we deal with it?

?Orthodox Theories? vs ?Root Causes?

Dealing with Terrorism  

YES: The use of force to combat terrorism

Modern terrorism is the product of two variables: motivation and operational capabilities.  

Proactive and Reactive Action

Legality and Morality

Ultimately, there is no simple and single solution to terrorism, just as there is no simple and single cause. Responding effectively to terrorism is a complex matter: a considerable array of responses is available to any regime facing a terrorist threat.

By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. 43% finish through politics. Only 7% military force. (Libicki, Rand: 2008)

learn to live with it; where possible, address underlying root problems and causes; avoid over-militarisation of the response; acknowledge that intelligence is the most vital element in successful counterterrorism; respect orthodox legal frameworks and adhere to the democratically established rule of law; co-ordinate security-related, financial and technological preventative measures; and maintain strong credibility in the counterterrorist public argument. (English, 2009)


Especially those measures involving the military and treatment of detainees, have inadvertently provided al-Qaeda with propaganda coups,

Critical terrorism studies: With links to the Frankfurt School of critical theory political bias, relationship between much orthodox terrorism research and the institutions of state power CTS scholars argue that terrorism should be de-exceptionalised as a form of political violence, not singled out as a unique form of “evil” violence, but should be treated as other forms of political violence are.[1] CTS also encourages researchers to engage with terrorists as humans, and not form explanations of terrorists in an ‘Othering’ sense.[3] Therefore; “Ultimately, a critical approach to terrorism suggests that more positive and progressive change is always possible and that we can break out of seemingly endless cycles of terrorist/counter-terrorist violence, if only we can begin to think, study, speak and act outside of the dominant terrorism paradigm.

War is the continuation of politics by other means (Clausewitz 1780)


Any emergency laws must be temporary

No special treatment

Terrorist propaganda must be countered

No concessions (hostages)

What is terrorism?

Terrorism and political violence


Psychological profiling has verified that terrorists are not psychologically abnormal, but that there may be common elements (for example, psychological impulses such as a feeling of revenge) between those who decide to join a terrorist group and partake in terrorist violence.

  • Critical Studies X Orthodox Studies (a problem whose solution must be imposed.)

‘Critical terrorism studies’ (CTS) broadened the study of terrorism to include a more problematized role of the state and the instances in which it produces terror as part of its monopoly of violence.

CTS is tasked with responding to war (problem solving, positivist) rather than (pro)actively seeking peace (reflexivity than the dominant , a degree of methodological pluralism).

  • New (Such analyses entail two significant implications, the first of which is that there is
  • Nothing political in ‘religious terrorist’ acts, as a result of which, the second implication is
  • That there is no room for negotiation, or even prevention.) X Old Terrorism

Different levels of analyses:

  • Individual
  • Social
  • State
  • International

Orthodox theories of terrorism (Early traditional) The central core of traditionalist approaches in both fields concerns the security of the state through the elimination of actors and agendas that question and oppose its legitimacy. global North’s perceptions of a liberal peace?’

Critical Terrorist Studies common factors with Peace Studies a broader and deeper understanding of motives, structures, hierarchies, ideologies, and dynamics.

The vast array of research centers, think-tanks and policy institutions that sprang up throughout the world in the aftermath of the attacks has contributed to the ‘fetishization’ (Wyn Jones 1999: 22) of certain parts of the phenomenon and the misconception that terrorism is somehow a special, more dangerous type of political violence (Mac Ginty 2014). The highlighting of the ‘evilness’ and ‘irrationality’ of terrorist violence by policy circles and a significant part of terrorism scholars has not only resulted in blocking and preventing detailed, accurate and systematic research to take place, but also in the villainisation and demonisation of researchers as ‘sympathizers’ and ‘defenders’ of terrorism (Stampnitzky 2013: 189). If terrorism is ‘evil’ and we are the ‘good guys’, then, any effort to understand it means that one is crossing the line. Similarly, there is no rationality to be extracted from something ‘irrational’ and ‘incomprehensible’ (ibid.: 191) and, thus, any such efforts must be inherently tainted as ‘sympathising’.

Terrorism studies, on the other hand, continued to be dominated by orthodox understandings of security and peace.

The chapter concludes with the observation that there is much more to gain epistemologically and ontologically from an analysis of terrorism-from-a-peace perspective rather than from the security perspective. In other words, terrorism is a type of war, ‘[f]or, as with other kinds of warfare, terrorist violence does involve strategy’

As I have argued elsewhere by paraphrasing Clausewitz, terrorism, like war, is the continuation of politics through other means is the terrorists’ perception that its strategic dimension will yield them political advantages while specific political agendas effectively shaped anti-terrorist policies and narratives and ‘stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear terrorism was conceptualised as a method and/or a strategy to conduct conflict well before, 9/11 terrorism was reclassified (through speech and act) as the greatest existentialist threat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *