The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism

Security Dialogues /Безбедносни дијалози, 2015

2017

Conclusion Bibliography 'frighten and coerce a large number of others' (1977: 11). Lasswell believes that terrorism arouses 'acute anxieties' (1978: 255). For Laqueur, Wilkinson and Hoffman, terrorism intends to create a climate of fear. Claridge believes that terrorism aims to alter the behaviour of an audience through generation of fear (1996: 50). Crenshaw points out that terrorism intends to 'shock, frighten, excite, or outrage' (2011: 2). Walter explains the terror of terrorism as 'the psychic state-extreme fearand on the other hand, the thing that terrifies-the violent event that produces the psychic state' (1969: 5). Simply put, there is generally no academic disagreement on terror (of terrorism) being understood in terms of fear.

This article seeks to turn the debate about the definition of terrorism on its head by arguing: (1) that the definitional debate has served to obscure the substantial scholarly consensus that actually exists on what terrorism is; (2) that this consensus is, however, largely unnecessary and irrelevant to the effective use of the term in the heterogeneous contexts within which it is employed; and (3) that by focusing on the quest for a definition of terrorism, terrorism scholars have largely missed the really interesting question about the word, namely, why it is that, given the heterogeneous purposes and contexts for which the word is used, we nonetheless continue to use a single word for all. In other words, how is it that we continue to know terrorism when we see it?

Redefining Terror and Terrorism Concepts, 2025

Terror and terrorism have different definitions that are similar but complementary. Although terrorism is derived from the word terror, there are some differences between them. Terror is an act of violence created by the uncontrolled masses. Terrorism, on the other hand, is the conscious and deliberate use of methods of violence to achieve a political goal. There is a specific will and a purpose. With the influence of the modern age, the facilities provided by technology, communication, and transportation have helped spread terrorism quickly and reach global dimensions. This process reveals the changing dimensions and different approaches to terrorism at national, regional, and global levels. These different approaches emerge as a problem in understanding the concept of terrorism when used interchangeably. From this point of view, the study aims to create a new definition by explaining the concepts of terror and terrorism and other concepts derived from them. Thus, historical and descriptive research methods will be applied, as well as document-based analysis, and the result will be reached. The study's hypothesis is centred on the misuse of the concepts of terror and terrorism and their concepts.

The present study reviews the definitions and classification of terrorism; with special reference to historical, ideological, sociological and psychological aspects as well as contexts. The meta–analysis and grounded theory are the analytical approaches of descriptive research which have been applied for reviewing and analyzing the variety of definitions and types of terrorism, used by different scholars, politicians, journalists, foreign policy makers, analysts, religious-scholars, historians, sociologists, psychologists. Different definitions and types of terrorism, having different perspectives and ideologies, have been analyzed and summarized in the light of grounded theory to establish a precise and comprehensive definition for the classificatory distribution of various types and perspectives of terrorism.

This article examines various problems in defining and building consensus on the most controversial term—terrorism—in contemporary politics. The objective is to clarify the relativist enmesh to be able to distinguish between what constitutes freedom fighting and what would fall under the category of terrorism. The article attempts to authenticate the legitimacy of freedom movements which the states against which these are launched dub as terrorism. It is, therefore, argued that liberation movements which are recognized by the UN should not be termed as terrorism. However, the use of violence against noncombatants puts the legitimacy of such movements in doubt. Moreover, in order to come out of the relativist confusion regarding the popular saying—“one man’s terrorist, another man’s freedom fighter”—it is necessary to evolve a clear definition to separate the two activities.

Terrorism and political violence, 2004

Terrorism has been situated-and thereby implicitly also defined-in various contexts such as crime, politics, war, propaganda and religion. Depending on which framework one chooses, certain aspects of terrorism get exposed while others are placed 'outside the picture' if only one framework is utilised. In this article five conceptual lenses are utilised: 1. terrorism as=and crime; 2. terrorism as=and politics; 3. terrorism as=and warfare; 4. terrorism as=and communication; and 5. terrorism as=and religious fundamentalism. TERRORISM AS=AND CRIME 1 Most, if not all activities commonly perpetrated by terrorists, are considered illegal if not always illegitimate by the international community. Typical expressions of terrorist violence such as indiscriminate bombings, armed assaults on civilians, focused assassinations, kidnappings, hostage-taking and hijacking are considered criminal offences in national or international laws. While the criminal nature of acts of terrorism is widely accepted, most observers acknowledge the presence of political motives underlying certain terrorist activities. The two categories-crime and politics-do not exclude each other, as is exemplified by the concept of 'political crime', which exists in some legal frameworks. The motive or intent of a crime might be 'political', but the act itself is considered 'criminal'. It is worthwhile to recall what exactly a 'crime' is. Crime has been defined as 'the intentional commission of an act usually deemed The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent positions of the United Nations where the author serves as Senior Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer in the Terroism Prevention Branch of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna.

Constructions of Terrorism, 2019

Constructions of terrorism emanate from a wide range of sources. Governments and international organizations create criminal laws and administrative lists defining who is a terrorist or what acts constitute terrorism. In society, discussions among its members and the press play a major role in how the words terrorism and extremism are used and applied, which in turn influences public understanding and government policy. Terrorist groups themselves contribute to these constructions through the rationales and justifications they use for their actions. Today we are seeing the continual reference to terrorism in everyday language, government policy, news reporting, and international diplomacy and from various groups and uprisings. With the term being used to describe a wide range of violence, it is difficult to formulate effective government responses aimed at prevention and eradication. It further makes things difficult in societal settings for creating conducive environments for reconciliation. This volume seeks to establish appropriate research frameworks for understanding how we construct understanding(s) of terrorism. From the perspective of countering terrorism and extremism, if there is not a well-developed understanding of the object of these frameworks, they will not be effective. Assessments of the literature of terrorism have revealed consistent and troubling shortcomings. Lum, Kennedy, and Sherley and Andrew Silke carefully examined studies of terrorism published over the previous decades and the great explosion of terrorism research after 9/11. 1 The most germane findings about terrorism and counterterrorism research in their two studies help frame the contributions that have been reviewed here. The first finding is that most of the publications on terrorism have been contributions by scholars who were relatively new to the subject. These scholars discovered terrorism as a problem, usually after a particularly

2017

2016

Reaching an agreed definition of terrorism has proved problematic, with over 100 different working definitions counted. Consensus stumbles particularly on issues of legitimacy, assessing reasons behind the violence and whether a state can commit acts of terrorism - or whether they are to be excluded as they have the monopoly on legitimate violence. Greater empirical research and independence in terrorism scholarship is required to formulate an agreed definition. States should not be exempt from terrorism as part of a broader movement excluding any consideration of the motives or causes cited as the reason for the attack. The definition should focus on the nature of the act, not the philosophy behind it. For even if the cause or grievance is understandable, and can be reasonably argued with a defence of necessity, that does not mean the violence undertaken should cease to be illegal and inhumane. The ends must be separated from the means. Clarity of definition is crucial for counter-...