Lecture 1
What is terrorism?
- Two main observations:
o No commonly accepted definitions
o Highly politicized debate
→ ‘Terrorist is everyone we don’t agree with?
- More than an academic problem
o (counter)terrorism can affect entire populations
o Nuanced and critical approach key to informed citizenship
The definitional debate:
- Ongoing since field’s inception
→ Negative connotations with terrorism
→ Subjective; freedom fighters vs terrorists
→ Too infrequent to generalise?
- Results:
→ Condemnation rather than description
→ Terrorism is a definitional weapon;
→ Prescribes and rules out policy response?
→ Normatively influences research agenda?
→ Difficulties of building upon research
Definitions:
- What is the purpose of a definition?
o Tells main characteristics
o Clear demarcations
o Objective and neutral
- Various types
o There are multiple definitions for one subject/ words
- Key elements in the definition of terrorism
Clarity through comparison
- Terrorism vs insurgency (insurgent organisation aims to overthrow the government)
- Terrorism vs organised crime (organised crime is mainly about money)
- Terrorism vs terror (terror is the same violence being used by states)
- Terrorism vs war
Definition of terrorism (Schmid, 2011)
‘Terrorism refers on the one hand to a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a
special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, to
a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or
moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its
propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties’
,Different kinds of terrorism
→ Left-wing terrorism
- Marxist/ Leninist , revolutionary, struggle for a class-less society
- defined terrorism 1960s-1980s
→ Right-wing terrorism
- Mistrust in the government, conspiracy theories, racist, neo-fascist, highly
conservative, religious
→ Nationalist/ separatist
- Self-determination, anticolonial, strong driver insurgency
→ State terror
- Large scale violence to intimidate pr control populations
→ Religious
- Revolutionary, millenarian, reform of destruction, worldly goals
→ Criminal
- FARC? Taliban? IRA? Narco-terrorism in the Netherlands?
→ Single-issue
- Not focused on a particular ideology, but a particular grievance
→ Lone actor
- Individuals who plan, prepare and execute attacks in isolation
→ Cyber
- The increasing importance of the internet
Types of terrorism: facts & figures
• Contemporary terrorism is about more than jihadism
• Emphasis on jihadism explained / justified by their deadliness?
• Danger of another ‘failure of imagination’
Conclusion
• Terrorism as a quintessential ‘contested concept’
• Familiarity with the definitional debate as key learning outcome
• Schmid and ‘terrorism as demonstrative violence’
• Terrorism is not exclusively a non-state activity and knows many forms
,Readings lecture 1
Ganor
Defining terrorism: is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter?
Introduction
● Can be based upon accepted international laws and principle regarding the permitted
behaviours during a conflict: definitions given by the Geneva and Hague conventions
● Terrorism and guerilla distinguished by the target of their operation: guerilla fighter’s
targets are military while terrorists target civilians
● The definition prevents from categorizing groups targeting civilians as “freedom
fighters”
○ Worldwide acceptance of this idea may change post-benefits calculations of
terrorist organisations
○ Actions done by recognized states already addressed in “war crime” or “crime
against humanity”, but lack of definition for non-state politically motivated
actors
● Need for a universally accepted definition: all states must fight against terrorism so
that “cultural relativism” cannot be acceptable anymore, a concept that according to
the author leads to more terrorism.
→ you can't decide on which group is a terrorist if you don't have a definition and then you
cant establish policies and international agreements for it
Defining Terrorism: the present situation
● The author argues that having tendentious definitions, comparing with guerilla
movements, underground movements, national liberation movements, commandos…
terrorist organisations have a better way to justify their actions: more legitimate and
positive foundations
Proposing a definition
● Terrorism as the intentional use of, or threat to use of, violence against civilians, in
order to attain political aims
○ has to be violence: cannot consider protests and peaceful demonstrations as
terrorism
○ has to have an aim to change the regime, the people in place or
socio-economic policies . Can be added ideology and religion as a motive
○ The target is civilians directly
Guerilla Warfare VS Terrorism
● Terrorism has a far more negative connotation than Guerilla, but the lines between
the two concepts are generally blurred
● Guerilla in rural areas and terrorism in urban areas?
● Groups can be involved in goth guerilla and terrorism (according to the author,
because of the lack of definition in international law)
● why does he focus on the means and not the goals?
, → terrorism and warfare mostly have the same goals but not the same means and targets.
Guerilla targets military ones, and terrorists target civilians
The aims of terrorism and Guerilla Warfare
● both actions can have the same aim, but have different means to accomplish them:
national liberation, revolution, anarchism, socio-economiccts changes…
Defining states’ involvement in terrorism
● violent activities committed by a state against civilians are forbidden by international
law: war crimes
● All forms of state involvement in terrorism are placed “under the general category of
terrorist states, or state sponsored terrorism”
○ states supporting terrorism
○ states operating terrorism
○ States perpetrating terrorism
● “actions by a state against terrorist activity cannot be defined as terrorism only
because the later are not actually civilians”
→ actions by a state against terrorist activity cannot be defined as terrorism only because
the later are not actually civilians
→ crime against humanity
The importance of defining terrorism
● An issue which involves a number of international aspects: organisation may target
different countries, be based in several countries, receive assistance from different
states or ethnic communities, secure financial help in different places…
● Developing an effective international strategy requires a widely accepted definition
○ Legislation and punishment: needed to provide security. If no agreement from
everywhere, these laws and regulations have no value: need for a system of
punishment of terrorist acts in the entire world
○ International cooperation: more effective against terrorism
○ States sponsoring terrorism: terrorism org are generally dependent on
financial aid from other countries: need international agreement to prevent
state funding terrorist org
○ Offensive action: need international support for states acting against terrorism
○ Attitudes towards the populations supporting terrorism: undermine the
possibility for the org to get any kind of assistance, support and aid from
populations
○ Normative scale: a widely accepted definition will enable initiation of
international campaigns against terrorist org and their legitimacy
What is terrorism?
- Two main observations:
o No commonly accepted definitions
o Highly politicized debate
→ ‘Terrorist is everyone we don’t agree with?
- More than an academic problem
o (counter)terrorism can affect entire populations
o Nuanced and critical approach key to informed citizenship
The definitional debate:
- Ongoing since field’s inception
→ Negative connotations with terrorism
→ Subjective; freedom fighters vs terrorists
→ Too infrequent to generalise?
- Results:
→ Condemnation rather than description
→ Terrorism is a definitional weapon;
→ Prescribes and rules out policy response?
→ Normatively influences research agenda?
→ Difficulties of building upon research
Definitions:
- What is the purpose of a definition?
o Tells main characteristics
o Clear demarcations
o Objective and neutral
- Various types
o There are multiple definitions for one subject/ words
- Key elements in the definition of terrorism
Clarity through comparison
- Terrorism vs insurgency (insurgent organisation aims to overthrow the government)
- Terrorism vs organised crime (organised crime is mainly about money)
- Terrorism vs terror (terror is the same violence being used by states)
- Terrorism vs war
Definition of terrorism (Schmid, 2011)
‘Terrorism refers on the one hand to a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a
special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, to
a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or
moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its
propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties’
,Different kinds of terrorism
→ Left-wing terrorism
- Marxist/ Leninist , revolutionary, struggle for a class-less society
- defined terrorism 1960s-1980s
→ Right-wing terrorism
- Mistrust in the government, conspiracy theories, racist, neo-fascist, highly
conservative, religious
→ Nationalist/ separatist
- Self-determination, anticolonial, strong driver insurgency
→ State terror
- Large scale violence to intimidate pr control populations
→ Religious
- Revolutionary, millenarian, reform of destruction, worldly goals
→ Criminal
- FARC? Taliban? IRA? Narco-terrorism in the Netherlands?
→ Single-issue
- Not focused on a particular ideology, but a particular grievance
→ Lone actor
- Individuals who plan, prepare and execute attacks in isolation
→ Cyber
- The increasing importance of the internet
Types of terrorism: facts & figures
• Contemporary terrorism is about more than jihadism
• Emphasis on jihadism explained / justified by their deadliness?
• Danger of another ‘failure of imagination’
Conclusion
• Terrorism as a quintessential ‘contested concept’
• Familiarity with the definitional debate as key learning outcome
• Schmid and ‘terrorism as demonstrative violence’
• Terrorism is not exclusively a non-state activity and knows many forms
,Readings lecture 1
Ganor
Defining terrorism: is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter?
Introduction
● Can be based upon accepted international laws and principle regarding the permitted
behaviours during a conflict: definitions given by the Geneva and Hague conventions
● Terrorism and guerilla distinguished by the target of their operation: guerilla fighter’s
targets are military while terrorists target civilians
● The definition prevents from categorizing groups targeting civilians as “freedom
fighters”
○ Worldwide acceptance of this idea may change post-benefits calculations of
terrorist organisations
○ Actions done by recognized states already addressed in “war crime” or “crime
against humanity”, but lack of definition for non-state politically motivated
actors
● Need for a universally accepted definition: all states must fight against terrorism so
that “cultural relativism” cannot be acceptable anymore, a concept that according to
the author leads to more terrorism.
→ you can't decide on which group is a terrorist if you don't have a definition and then you
cant establish policies and international agreements for it
Defining Terrorism: the present situation
● The author argues that having tendentious definitions, comparing with guerilla
movements, underground movements, national liberation movements, commandos…
terrorist organisations have a better way to justify their actions: more legitimate and
positive foundations
Proposing a definition
● Terrorism as the intentional use of, or threat to use of, violence against civilians, in
order to attain political aims
○ has to be violence: cannot consider protests and peaceful demonstrations as
terrorism
○ has to have an aim to change the regime, the people in place or
socio-economic policies . Can be added ideology and religion as a motive
○ The target is civilians directly
Guerilla Warfare VS Terrorism
● Terrorism has a far more negative connotation than Guerilla, but the lines between
the two concepts are generally blurred
● Guerilla in rural areas and terrorism in urban areas?
● Groups can be involved in goth guerilla and terrorism (according to the author,
because of the lack of definition in international law)
● why does he focus on the means and not the goals?
, → terrorism and warfare mostly have the same goals but not the same means and targets.
Guerilla targets military ones, and terrorists target civilians
The aims of terrorism and Guerilla Warfare
● both actions can have the same aim, but have different means to accomplish them:
national liberation, revolution, anarchism, socio-economiccts changes…
Defining states’ involvement in terrorism
● violent activities committed by a state against civilians are forbidden by international
law: war crimes
● All forms of state involvement in terrorism are placed “under the general category of
terrorist states, or state sponsored terrorism”
○ states supporting terrorism
○ states operating terrorism
○ States perpetrating terrorism
● “actions by a state against terrorist activity cannot be defined as terrorism only
because the later are not actually civilians”
→ actions by a state against terrorist activity cannot be defined as terrorism only because
the later are not actually civilians
→ crime against humanity
The importance of defining terrorism
● An issue which involves a number of international aspects: organisation may target
different countries, be based in several countries, receive assistance from different
states or ethnic communities, secure financial help in different places…
● Developing an effective international strategy requires a widely accepted definition
○ Legislation and punishment: needed to provide security. If no agreement from
everywhere, these laws and regulations have no value: need for a system of
punishment of terrorist acts in the entire world
○ International cooperation: more effective against terrorism
○ States sponsoring terrorism: terrorism org are generally dependent on
financial aid from other countries: need international agreement to prevent
state funding terrorist org
○ Offensive action: need international support for states acting against terrorism
○ Attitudes towards the populations supporting terrorism: undermine the
possibility for the org to get any kind of assistance, support and aid from
populations
○ Normative scale: a widely accepted definition will enable initiation of
international campaigns against terrorist org and their legitimacy
