Terrorism and Counterterrorism 2025-2026
Summary Lectures and Literature + Practice Questions
Lectures:
Week 1 – Defining Terrorism and Situating It Within Political Violence
Terrorism is one of the most contested concepts in the study of political violence, both
academically and politically. Despite decades of research, no single, universally accepted
definition exists. This is not merely an abstract problem, as the way terrorism is defined has
real-world implications for law, policy, counterterrorism strategies, and public perception. The
term “terrorist” carries strong moral condemnation and is frequently used as a political label
to delegitimize opponents. As a result, debates about terrorism are often highly politicized,
with actors disagreeing not only on who qualifies as a terrorist but also on whether violence
should be interpreted as terrorism or as legitimate resistance.
One reason definitions are so difficult to agree upon is that terrorism is not an ideology,
organization, or actor, but a form of behavior. It refers to a specific method of violence rather
than a fixed type of group. Terrorism can be employed by actors with very different
ideological motivations, including nationalist, religious, left-wing, or right-wing causes. What
unites these diverse actors is not what they believe, but how they choose to use violence.
Terrorism therefore needs to be understood as a tactic within a broader repertoire of political
violence, rather than as a distinct category of political actors.
To clarify what terrorism is, it is useful to compare it to other forms of violence. Unlike
insurgents, terrorists do not aim to hold territory or govern populations. Unlike organized
criminals, they are not primarily motivated by financial gain. Unlike conventional soldiers,
they do not operate within recognized rules of warfare, and unlike ordinary murderers, they
do not know their victims personally. Terrorist violence is directed at victims who are chosen
for their symbolic value rather than for who they are individually. The victims themselves are
not the ultimate audience of the violence. Instead, they are instrumentalized as a means of
communicating a message to a wider audience, such as a government, a population, or the
international community.
This communicative dimension is central to most academic definitions of terrorism. Terrorism
is best understood as violent communication. The immediate physical harm inflicted during
an attack is less important than the psychological impact generated beyond the scene of
violence. Terrorist attacks are designed to produce fear, uncertainty, and a sense of
vulnerability among a broader audience. Through this fear, terrorists seek to coerce,
intimidate, or influence political decision-making. Violence is therefore not an end in itself,
but a strategic tool used to send a message and provoke a reaction.
A widely cited academic definition that captures these elements is provided by Alex Schmid.
In his formulation, terrorism is both a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of fear-
,generating violence and a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative violence,
primarily targeting civilians and non-combatants. This violence is performed for its
psychological and propagandistic effects rather than for immediate military gain. Schmid’s
definition emphasizes that terrorism operates without legal or moral restraints and that its
effectiveness depends on audience reactions rather than battlefield success.
Understanding terrorism as a form of political violence also requires situating it within the
broader concept of political violence. Political violence refers to the use of physical force with
the intention to harm others in pursuit of political goals. This can be carried out by both state
and non-state actors and can take many forms, including war, rebellion, coups, genocide,
repression, and terrorism. Terrorism is only one manifestation within this wider spectrum.
What distinguishes terrorism from other forms of political violence is not simply who carries
it out, but how it targets and communicates violence.
A key distinction often made in definitions of terrorism is that terrorism is practiced by non-
state actors. States are generally considered to possess a legitimate monopoly on the use of
force, a principle famously articulated by Max Weber. However, this distinction becomes
problematic when states use violence against civilian populations in ways that resemble
terrorism. Practices such as state repression, genocide, and state-sponsored violence challenge
the assumption that only non-state actors can engage in terroristic violence. This has led to
ongoing debates about whether concepts such as “state terrorism” should be included within
the analytical framework of terrorism studies.
Another defining characteristic of terrorism is its strategic selectivity in targeting. While
civilians are frequently the direct victims of terrorist attacks, the real targets are psychological
and political. Attacks are often carefully chosen for their symbolic significance, their media
visibility, or their capacity to provoke overreaction by authorities. Terrorism thus relies
heavily on media coverage to amplify its effects. Without public attention, terrorist violence
loses much of its strategic value. This dependency on publicity further reinforces the idea of
terrorism as communication rather than purely physical destruction.
The definitional debate surrounding terrorism has important consequences for research.
Because scholars do not agree on a single definition, comparing studies and building
cumulative knowledge is difficult. Different definitions lead to different datasets, different
case selections, and different conclusions. Moreover, normative judgments about terrorism
can shape research agendas, sometimes turning scholars into implicit advocates of
counterterrorism rather than neutral analysts. A critical and reflective approach to definitions
is therefore essential for studying terrorism rigorously.
In sum, terrorism is best conceptualized as a method of political violence characterized by the
strategic use of fear, the targeting of symbolic victims, and the intention to communicate a
message to a broader audience. It is not tied to any single ideology or movement, but can be
employed by a wide range of actors in pursuit of political objectives. Understanding terrorism
in this way provides the foundation for examining its historical development, its causes, and
the challenges involved in responding to it.
,Week 2 – The History of Terrorism and the Four Waves of Modern Terrorism
Terrorism in its modern form is not a timeless or static phenomenon but one that has evolved
in distinct historical phases. Understanding terrorism historically helps to explain why certain
ideologies, tactics, and organizational forms emerge at particular moments and why they
decline or transform over time. Rather than viewing terrorism as an ever-present feature of
political life, it is more accurate to understand it as cyclical, shaped by broader political,
social, and technological developments.
A widely used framework for analyzing the historical development of modern terrorism is
David Rapoport’s theory of the four waves of modern terrorism. Rapoport defines a wave as a
cycle of violent activity that lasts roughly a generation, has an international character, and is
driven by a dominant ideological motivation. Each wave produces its own repertoire of
tactics, narratives, and organizational forms, which are imitated across borders and inspire
groups in different contexts. Over time, these waves decline as their motivating ideologies
lose appeal, counterterrorism adapts, or political circumstances change.
The first of these waves is the anarchist wave, which emerged in the late nineteenth century
and lasted until the outbreak of the First World War. This wave originated primarily in Russia
but quickly spread across Europe and North America. Anarchist terrorists believed that
political systems were inherently oppressive and that dramatic acts of violence could awaken
the masses and trigger revolutionary change. Assassination became the hallmark tactic of this
period, targeting heads of state, government officials, and symbolic representatives of
authority. Technological innovations such as the telegraph, railways, and mass-circulation
newspapers played a crucial role in internationalizing anarchist violence, allowing attacks to
gain immediate global attention. Terrorist doctrines during this period functioned as
blueprints, with successful attacks inspiring imitation elsewhere.
The anarchist wave declined for several reasons. Governments became more effective at
policing and intelligence-sharing, anarchist ideology lost its revolutionary appeal, and the
outbreak of World War I shifted political priorities. The scale of state violence during the war
also overshadowed the symbolic impact of individual terrorist attacks, reducing their
perceived effectiveness.
The second wave, known as the anti-colonial or nationalist wave, emerged after World War I
and lasted until the 1960s. This wave was driven by the principle of national self-
determination and was closely tied to the collapse of European empires. Terrorist violence
was used by nationalist movements seeking independence from colonial rule. Groups in
Ireland, Israel, Algeria, Cyprus, and elsewhere employed terrorism as part of broader
campaigns that combined political mobilization, guerrilla warfare, and diplomatic efforts.
Unlike anarchist terrorists, anti-colonial groups often enjoyed significant local support and
framed their violence as legitimate resistance rather than revolutionary provocation.
During this wave, terrorism proved to be strategically effective in some cases. Colonial
powers, exhausted by World War II and facing mounting international pressure, were often
, unwilling or unable to sustain prolonged counterinsurgency campaigns. Terrorism helped to
raise the costs of colonial rule and attract international attention to nationalist causes.
However, the moral ambiguity of this wave persists, as groups labeled terrorists by colonial
authorities are often remembered as freedom fighters in national histories.
The decline of the anti-colonial wave coincided with the achievement of independence by
many former colonies and the exhaustion of nationalist struggles. As colonial empires
dissolved, the ideological foundation of this wave weakened, giving rise to new forms of
political violence.
The third wave, commonly referred to as the New Left wave, emerged in the late 1960s and
lasted until the end of the Cold War. This wave was shaped by global political developments
such as the Vietnam War, the Cuban Revolution, and widespread student protests. Unlike anti-
colonial movements, New Left terrorist groups operated primarily in industrialized Western
democracies and lacked broad popular support. These groups believed that revolutionary
potential did not arise naturally within advanced capitalist societies and therefore had to be
created through violence.
New Left terrorists framed their actions as part of a global struggle against capitalism,
imperialism, and state repression. They often viewed themselves as vanguards acting on
behalf of oppressed groups both domestically and internationally. Tactics included bombings,
kidnappings, hijackings, and targeted assassinations, often designed to provoke harsh state
responses that would radicalize the population. Despite their ideological ambition, many New
Left groups struggled to maintain momentum and cohesion. Internal fragmentation, effective
counterterrorism measures, and declining public sympathy contributed to their eventual
decline.
The fourth and current wave is the religious wave, which began in 1979 and continues to
shape global terrorism today. While often associated with Islamist extremism, this wave is not
exclusively Islamic in nature. Religious terrorism has appeared across different faiths and
contexts, but jihadist groups have been the most prominent and enduring actors within this
wave. Key events such as the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the
subsequent internationalization of armed jihad played a central role in its emergence.
Religious terrorism differs from previous waves in several important ways. Violence is
framed not as a strategic choice but as a sacred duty, often justified through divine authority
rather than political calculation. This framing can remove moral and practical constraints on
violence, expanding the range of legitimate targets and increasing lethality. Religious
narratives also provide a powerful sense of meaning, identity, and transcendence, which can
sustain long-term commitment even in the face of severe losses.
Jihad, a central concept within this wave, is itself highly contested and historically dynamic.
While it can refer to personal spiritual struggle, jihadist groups emphasize its militant
interpretation as armed struggle in defense of Islam. Influential thinkers such as Ibn
Taymiyya, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and later figures within the Muslim Brotherhood reinterpreted
jihad as a response to perceived moral decay, foreign domination, and corrupt leadership.
These ideas laid the intellectual foundations for contemporary jihadist movements.
Summary Lectures and Literature + Practice Questions
Lectures:
Week 1 – Defining Terrorism and Situating It Within Political Violence
Terrorism is one of the most contested concepts in the study of political violence, both
academically and politically. Despite decades of research, no single, universally accepted
definition exists. This is not merely an abstract problem, as the way terrorism is defined has
real-world implications for law, policy, counterterrorism strategies, and public perception. The
term “terrorist” carries strong moral condemnation and is frequently used as a political label
to delegitimize opponents. As a result, debates about terrorism are often highly politicized,
with actors disagreeing not only on who qualifies as a terrorist but also on whether violence
should be interpreted as terrorism or as legitimate resistance.
One reason definitions are so difficult to agree upon is that terrorism is not an ideology,
organization, or actor, but a form of behavior. It refers to a specific method of violence rather
than a fixed type of group. Terrorism can be employed by actors with very different
ideological motivations, including nationalist, religious, left-wing, or right-wing causes. What
unites these diverse actors is not what they believe, but how they choose to use violence.
Terrorism therefore needs to be understood as a tactic within a broader repertoire of political
violence, rather than as a distinct category of political actors.
To clarify what terrorism is, it is useful to compare it to other forms of violence. Unlike
insurgents, terrorists do not aim to hold territory or govern populations. Unlike organized
criminals, they are not primarily motivated by financial gain. Unlike conventional soldiers,
they do not operate within recognized rules of warfare, and unlike ordinary murderers, they
do not know their victims personally. Terrorist violence is directed at victims who are chosen
for their symbolic value rather than for who they are individually. The victims themselves are
not the ultimate audience of the violence. Instead, they are instrumentalized as a means of
communicating a message to a wider audience, such as a government, a population, or the
international community.
This communicative dimension is central to most academic definitions of terrorism. Terrorism
is best understood as violent communication. The immediate physical harm inflicted during
an attack is less important than the psychological impact generated beyond the scene of
violence. Terrorist attacks are designed to produce fear, uncertainty, and a sense of
vulnerability among a broader audience. Through this fear, terrorists seek to coerce,
intimidate, or influence political decision-making. Violence is therefore not an end in itself,
but a strategic tool used to send a message and provoke a reaction.
A widely cited academic definition that captures these elements is provided by Alex Schmid.
In his formulation, terrorism is both a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of fear-
,generating violence and a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative violence,
primarily targeting civilians and non-combatants. This violence is performed for its
psychological and propagandistic effects rather than for immediate military gain. Schmid’s
definition emphasizes that terrorism operates without legal or moral restraints and that its
effectiveness depends on audience reactions rather than battlefield success.
Understanding terrorism as a form of political violence also requires situating it within the
broader concept of political violence. Political violence refers to the use of physical force with
the intention to harm others in pursuit of political goals. This can be carried out by both state
and non-state actors and can take many forms, including war, rebellion, coups, genocide,
repression, and terrorism. Terrorism is only one manifestation within this wider spectrum.
What distinguishes terrorism from other forms of political violence is not simply who carries
it out, but how it targets and communicates violence.
A key distinction often made in definitions of terrorism is that terrorism is practiced by non-
state actors. States are generally considered to possess a legitimate monopoly on the use of
force, a principle famously articulated by Max Weber. However, this distinction becomes
problematic when states use violence against civilian populations in ways that resemble
terrorism. Practices such as state repression, genocide, and state-sponsored violence challenge
the assumption that only non-state actors can engage in terroristic violence. This has led to
ongoing debates about whether concepts such as “state terrorism” should be included within
the analytical framework of terrorism studies.
Another defining characteristic of terrorism is its strategic selectivity in targeting. While
civilians are frequently the direct victims of terrorist attacks, the real targets are psychological
and political. Attacks are often carefully chosen for their symbolic significance, their media
visibility, or their capacity to provoke overreaction by authorities. Terrorism thus relies
heavily on media coverage to amplify its effects. Without public attention, terrorist violence
loses much of its strategic value. This dependency on publicity further reinforces the idea of
terrorism as communication rather than purely physical destruction.
The definitional debate surrounding terrorism has important consequences for research.
Because scholars do not agree on a single definition, comparing studies and building
cumulative knowledge is difficult. Different definitions lead to different datasets, different
case selections, and different conclusions. Moreover, normative judgments about terrorism
can shape research agendas, sometimes turning scholars into implicit advocates of
counterterrorism rather than neutral analysts. A critical and reflective approach to definitions
is therefore essential for studying terrorism rigorously.
In sum, terrorism is best conceptualized as a method of political violence characterized by the
strategic use of fear, the targeting of symbolic victims, and the intention to communicate a
message to a broader audience. It is not tied to any single ideology or movement, but can be
employed by a wide range of actors in pursuit of political objectives. Understanding terrorism
in this way provides the foundation for examining its historical development, its causes, and
the challenges involved in responding to it.
,Week 2 – The History of Terrorism and the Four Waves of Modern Terrorism
Terrorism in its modern form is not a timeless or static phenomenon but one that has evolved
in distinct historical phases. Understanding terrorism historically helps to explain why certain
ideologies, tactics, and organizational forms emerge at particular moments and why they
decline or transform over time. Rather than viewing terrorism as an ever-present feature of
political life, it is more accurate to understand it as cyclical, shaped by broader political,
social, and technological developments.
A widely used framework for analyzing the historical development of modern terrorism is
David Rapoport’s theory of the four waves of modern terrorism. Rapoport defines a wave as a
cycle of violent activity that lasts roughly a generation, has an international character, and is
driven by a dominant ideological motivation. Each wave produces its own repertoire of
tactics, narratives, and organizational forms, which are imitated across borders and inspire
groups in different contexts. Over time, these waves decline as their motivating ideologies
lose appeal, counterterrorism adapts, or political circumstances change.
The first of these waves is the anarchist wave, which emerged in the late nineteenth century
and lasted until the outbreak of the First World War. This wave originated primarily in Russia
but quickly spread across Europe and North America. Anarchist terrorists believed that
political systems were inherently oppressive and that dramatic acts of violence could awaken
the masses and trigger revolutionary change. Assassination became the hallmark tactic of this
period, targeting heads of state, government officials, and symbolic representatives of
authority. Technological innovations such as the telegraph, railways, and mass-circulation
newspapers played a crucial role in internationalizing anarchist violence, allowing attacks to
gain immediate global attention. Terrorist doctrines during this period functioned as
blueprints, with successful attacks inspiring imitation elsewhere.
The anarchist wave declined for several reasons. Governments became more effective at
policing and intelligence-sharing, anarchist ideology lost its revolutionary appeal, and the
outbreak of World War I shifted political priorities. The scale of state violence during the war
also overshadowed the symbolic impact of individual terrorist attacks, reducing their
perceived effectiveness.
The second wave, known as the anti-colonial or nationalist wave, emerged after World War I
and lasted until the 1960s. This wave was driven by the principle of national self-
determination and was closely tied to the collapse of European empires. Terrorist violence
was used by nationalist movements seeking independence from colonial rule. Groups in
Ireland, Israel, Algeria, Cyprus, and elsewhere employed terrorism as part of broader
campaigns that combined political mobilization, guerrilla warfare, and diplomatic efforts.
Unlike anarchist terrorists, anti-colonial groups often enjoyed significant local support and
framed their violence as legitimate resistance rather than revolutionary provocation.
During this wave, terrorism proved to be strategically effective in some cases. Colonial
powers, exhausted by World War II and facing mounting international pressure, were often
, unwilling or unable to sustain prolonged counterinsurgency campaigns. Terrorism helped to
raise the costs of colonial rule and attract international attention to nationalist causes.
However, the moral ambiguity of this wave persists, as groups labeled terrorists by colonial
authorities are often remembered as freedom fighters in national histories.
The decline of the anti-colonial wave coincided with the achievement of independence by
many former colonies and the exhaustion of nationalist struggles. As colonial empires
dissolved, the ideological foundation of this wave weakened, giving rise to new forms of
political violence.
The third wave, commonly referred to as the New Left wave, emerged in the late 1960s and
lasted until the end of the Cold War. This wave was shaped by global political developments
such as the Vietnam War, the Cuban Revolution, and widespread student protests. Unlike anti-
colonial movements, New Left terrorist groups operated primarily in industrialized Western
democracies and lacked broad popular support. These groups believed that revolutionary
potential did not arise naturally within advanced capitalist societies and therefore had to be
created through violence.
New Left terrorists framed their actions as part of a global struggle against capitalism,
imperialism, and state repression. They often viewed themselves as vanguards acting on
behalf of oppressed groups both domestically and internationally. Tactics included bombings,
kidnappings, hijackings, and targeted assassinations, often designed to provoke harsh state
responses that would radicalize the population. Despite their ideological ambition, many New
Left groups struggled to maintain momentum and cohesion. Internal fragmentation, effective
counterterrorism measures, and declining public sympathy contributed to their eventual
decline.
The fourth and current wave is the religious wave, which began in 1979 and continues to
shape global terrorism today. While often associated with Islamist extremism, this wave is not
exclusively Islamic in nature. Religious terrorism has appeared across different faiths and
contexts, but jihadist groups have been the most prominent and enduring actors within this
wave. Key events such as the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the
subsequent internationalization of armed jihad played a central role in its emergence.
Religious terrorism differs from previous waves in several important ways. Violence is
framed not as a strategic choice but as a sacred duty, often justified through divine authority
rather than political calculation. This framing can remove moral and practical constraints on
violence, expanding the range of legitimate targets and increasing lethality. Religious
narratives also provide a powerful sense of meaning, identity, and transcendence, which can
sustain long-term commitment even in the face of severe losses.
Jihad, a central concept within this wave, is itself highly contested and historically dynamic.
While it can refer to personal spiritual struggle, jihadist groups emphasize its militant
interpretation as armed struggle in defense of Islam. Influential thinkers such as Ibn
Taymiyya, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and later figures within the Muslim Brotherhood reinterpreted
jihad as a response to perceived moral decay, foreign domination, and corrupt leadership.
These ideas laid the intellectual foundations for contemporary jihadist movements.
