1. Prescriptions to resolve ethnic conflict (finishing). 2. What is terrorism? 3. How well do our existing theories deal with terrorism? 4. Is terrorism significant for IR?
1. Partition (some realists): Primordial, unchangeable identities. 2. Dialogue & information (some realists, domestic politics, constructivists): Identities constructed and malleable, (often) manipulated by leaders.
CControversies over several elements of definition: 1. Actors: only nonstate, or states too? 2. Goals: specifically political? 3. Target victims: civilians. 4. Intent: to “terrorize.”
Terror: “violence committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.” (M-W Dictionary) One definition of “Terrorism”: “use of terror by organised groups to achieve given objectives.” (Archibugi)
“Terrorism” a term often used for propaganda. Classify an enemy as terrorists to delegitimize their claims. Russia: Chechens. Britain: IRA/ Sinn Fein. Israel: Palestinians.
1. Neorealism: ((-) Terrorism not important when initiated by nonstate actors – must be state- sponsored to consider important. 2. Classical Realism: ((+) More flexibility in who actors are: threats can come from new sources. ((-) Not generally oriented to nonstate actors.
Primary logic of bargaining by rational actors as they weigh costs/ benefits of options. Can see terrorist groups acting strategically this way (e.g. Crenshaw, Pape).
1. Neoliberal institutionalism: ((-) States still main actors, also focus on cooperation. 2. Liberal interdependence: ((+) Nonstate actors key – so potential to consider terrorist impact. ((+) Modern technology important to terrorists. ((-) Focus on “good” globalization.
(+) May explain why terrorists adopt ideas and have animosities to other cultures. (+) May foresee changing norm in transnational political movements to favour terrorism. (-) But can’t predict when/ where occurs.
May do better than other theories. (+) Clash of cultural values – predict targets of attack? (Clash of Civilizations)
(+) Can take BP principles and apply to terrorist groups – see incentives of leaders. Crenshaw: Ambition to maintain organization, NOT achieve external political goals. (-) Explains why terrorists continue despite apparent failure, but not where and when.
Has world politics fundamentally changed?
Except 2001, more Americans killed by lightning or drowning in toilets than by terrorism. (Mueller) Until terrorism hit US, no thought that IR theories had to change to account for terrorism. Need to redefine actors, threats, definition of security in theories?