Defining Terrorism: how Ambiguous Definitions and Vague Classifications Open Doors for Power Acquisition

Anastassiya Mahon
{"title":"Defining Terrorism: how Ambiguous Definitions and Vague Classifications Open Doors for Power Acquisition","authors":"Anastassiya Mahon","doi":"10.36859/jgss.v2i1.1038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I want to reflect on the difficulty of categorising the threat of terrorism within existing security frameworks and our theorising of threat assessment. As more types of terrorism get academic and political attention, various state and non-state actors use terrorist tactics or borrow some elements of terrorism to achieve their agenda. This article discusses the difficulties surrounding terrorist threat classification and how it perplexes our understanding of terrorism and counterterrorism. \nWhat have we learned over more than twenty years of researching terrorism? Terrorism is often conceptualised as both a traditional and non-traditional threat, complicating the execution of counterterrorism strategies. This ambiguity creates the need for a \"special treatment\" of the terrorist threat in politics proportionate to its importance, and it bears the danger of fostering opportunities for power abuse. This article reflects on different ways of categorising the threat of terrorism, showing that terrorism is multifaced, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to defining and fighting terrorism. However, I also argue that there is a danger of assigning terrorism an extralegal status and exclusive priority, resulting in power abuse and restrictions of people's rights and freedoms.","PeriodicalId":206360,"journal":{"name":"Journal Of Global Strategic Studies","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal Of Global Strategic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36859/jgss.v2i1.1038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, I want to reflect on the difficulty of categorising the threat of terrorism within existing security frameworks and our theorising of threat assessment. As more types of terrorism get academic and political attention, various state and non-state actors use terrorist tactics or borrow some elements of terrorism to achieve their agenda. This article discusses the difficulties surrounding terrorist threat classification and how it perplexes our understanding of terrorism and counterterrorism. What have we learned over more than twenty years of researching terrorism? Terrorism is often conceptualised as both a traditional and non-traditional threat, complicating the execution of counterterrorism strategies. This ambiguity creates the need for a "special treatment" of the terrorist threat in politics proportionate to its importance, and it bears the danger of fostering opportunities for power abuse. This article reflects on different ways of categorising the threat of terrorism, showing that terrorism is multifaced, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to defining and fighting terrorism. However, I also argue that there is a danger of assigning terrorism an extralegal status and exclusive priority, resulting in power abuse and restrictions of people's rights and freedoms.
定义恐怖主义:模棱两可的定义和模糊的分类如何为权力获取打开大门
在这篇文章中,我想反思在现有安全框架内对恐怖主义威胁进行分类的困难,以及我们对威胁评估的理论化。随着越来越多类型的恐怖主义受到学术界和政界的关注,各种国家和非国家行为体使用恐怖主义策略或借用恐怖主义的某些元素来实现他们的议程。本文讨论了围绕恐怖主义威胁分类的困难,以及它如何困扰我们对恐怖主义和反恐的理解。在过去20多年的恐怖主义研究中,我们学到了什么?恐怖主义通常被定义为传统和非传统威胁,使反恐战略的执行复杂化。这种模糊性造成了在政治上对恐怖主义威胁进行与其重要性相称的“特殊处理”的需要,而且它有助长权力滥用机会的危险。本文反思了对恐怖主义威胁进行分类的不同方式,表明恐怖主义是多方面的,并没有一刀切的方法来定义和打击恐怖主义。然而,我也认为,有一种危险是赋予恐怖主义一种法外地位和排他性的优先地位,从而导致滥用权力和限制人民的权利和自由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信