BIBLIOGRAFÍA

As Best & Nocella II (2004) argue, ‘’terrorism is inherently a complex concept, but more so because it is a subjective, highly loaded, emotionally and politically charged term whose meaning is relative to one’s political ideology and agenda, and even one’s culture. Since no individual, group, or government wants to accept the negative consequences of the term, terrorism is always what someone else does.’’ Riemer (et al. 2013) notes that some view terrorism as an act of liberation, while others legitimize terrorism to a certain extent, or oppose it completely by disregarding it as a criminal act. Terrorism is regarded as an ‘essentially contested concept’ and a controversial subject (Beck and Miner 2013). What constitutes as terrorism – in terms of conceptualization or measurement – remains understudied, and explicit definitions and operationalization are absent (Beck and Miner 2013, Philips 2015). Studies in terrorism provide insight analysis and information about different attributes of terrorists, such as lethality and longevity (Philips 2015). But also emphasize the different levels of organization, namely global, transnational or domestic. However, the diffuse concept of terrorism and the lack of clarity and consensus result in both conceptual confusion and sample selection issues (Philips 2015, Crenshaw & Robison 2010, Beck and Miner 2013).

Key elements that arise from most acknowledged definitions of terrorism are: intentional use of violence; violence used to spread fear among a wider public than the target of violence; and political motivation (Philips 2015). Definitions of terrorism range from ‘premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience’ (U.S. Department of State 2003) to ‘the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological’ (U.S. Department of Defense). The incorporation of ‘targeting civilians’ in the definition of terrorism is emerging in international law, but is characterized by bias in favor of nation states and against non-state actors (Held 2008). The proposed (revised) academic consensus definition of terrorism by Schmid (2012) contains a detailed and comprehensive description of its definitional elements. Schmid (2012) described it in short as, ‘’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.’’

Studies by Schmid (1988, 2012) and Philips (2015) provide a valuable analysis – by combining qualitative and quantitative data – of the terrorism literature, and define the most salient and most acknowledged core concepts or ‘thresholds’ for terrorism. Philips’ (2015) study delineates different approaches of academia and governments towards definitional and conceptual issues. While some studies provide no definition and regard terrorism as an ‘essentially contested concept’, others emphasize terrorism as a strategy or tactic, and thereby disregarding terrorism in the actor-sense or as an organizational/group feature (Duyvesteyn and Fumerton 2015). Others provide an (implicit or explicit) inclusive definition or an exclusive definition. Philips (2015) finds that inclusive and exclusive action-based, and exclusive actor-based definitions are the most common in the study of terrorism (see table 2.2). Philips (2015) argues for the use of an inclusive definition of terrorist group and defines it as ‘a subnational political organization that uses terror.’ This legitimist approach emphasizes 1) the partial or exclusive use of terrorism by 2) a non-state group to 3) achieve political goals. The exclusive definition incorporates the three elements of the aforementioned inclusive definition, but distinguishes terrorism on an action level (primary use of terrorism vs. other tactics) and actor level (holds no territory) with other forms of violent extremism. Thus, the exclusive definition narrows down the application (intension) of the definition terrorism.

Table 2.2 Terrorist group conceptualization, intension vs. extension (Philips 2015) Terrorist group

is defined in this table as ‘a subnational political organization that uses terror’ Intension

Number of necessary conditions for each definition

Minimalist Political and

Criminal groups Inclusive Exclusive Action-based

Exclusive Actor-based

Subnational Yes Yes Yes Yes

Political Yes Yes Yes

Use of terrorism Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Primary use of terrorism vs. other tactics Yes Doesn’t hold territory Yes Extension

The degree by how broadly the definition applies

2.6.1

T

The political objective of the strategy of terrorism is ‘’to provoke responses from the opponent that will bring about a desired political change, without the explicit objective of directly establishing political [and military] control over a population and its territory’’ (Duyvesteyn & Fumerton 2015). This indicates political change as a dominant and most differentiating feature with insurgency, which in turn pursues political control. Gompert and Gordon (2008) argue that ‘’terrorism can also revolt towards the status quo, without offering or even striving for an alternative.’’ Initiating an armed struggle through the strategy of terrorism requires relative less ‘start-up costs’ due to its relative immunity of governmental repression (Duyvesteyn and Fumerton 2015). Terrorism is primarily used to force psychological target to react and modify behavior (Best & Nocella II 2004). A strategy of terrorism employs coercion and destabilization to affect desired change in order to accomplish strategic objectives (Stanton 2009). Terrorists often aim to erode the legitimacy and authority of the opponent by instilling fear through attacks on civilians or raise the costs of war. Other desired political-strategic objectives are forcing the opponent to engage in negotiations, make concessions, surrender, and revise policies and state behavior (Stanton 2009).

Strategies of terrorism aim to achieve political outcomes – such as eroding the legitimacy and authority of the adversary – through provocation and aiming at an (over-) reaction of the adversary. This reaction could, in turn, trigger public awareness of political grievances and raise popular sympathy for the moral superiority of their cause. Thus, terrorism instills fear by aiming at psychological results. Interaction with the adversary (mainly governments) illustrates state-centrism of strategies of terrorism. In the context of tactical instruments, attacking civilians is the primary way to achieve the political-strategic objectives (Kiras 2008, Crenshaw and Robison 2010, Philips 2015). Schmidt (1988, 2012), Philips (2015), Best and Nocella II (2004), and Riemer (et al 2013) argue that the terrorism is characterized as a strategy with no legal or moral constraints, and as calculated, demonstrative and indiscriminate violence.

Due to the importance of secrecy in the strategy of terrorism, terrorists are isolated from society and operate within a closed community. Secrecy is a strategic objective for terrorism and is conditional for the organizational design. The lack of systematic organizational work and direct contact with the population negatively impacts the relation with the population. Duyvesteyn and Fumerton (2015) argue that although mass support is not an anticipated outcome of terrorism, the secrecy of an organization doesn’t counteract legitimacy or popular sympathy. The strategy of terrorism can pose the risk of detachment or alienation from the population, mainly due to the strong in-group thinking and the focus on internal cohesion. Terrorism can also be seen a

How can the political ends and strategic objectives be accomplished?

What are the political ends and strategic objectives?

way of communication with the aim to deepen and strengthen social relations (Duyvesteyn and Fumerton 2015).

The organization of a terrorist group is designed to secure intrinsic cohesion of the group (trust, commitment and loyalty) and is therefore often characterized by a relative close-knit horizontal network (Duyvesteyn and Fumerton 2015). In addition, the organizational structure of terrorism secures propaganda processes, operates in a clandestine and conspiratorial way and facilitates secrecy of the movement, such as with small decision-making cells or cell structures (Philips 2015, Schmid 1988, Schmid 2012). Studies show a variety of hierarchies within terrorist organizations, from flat and informal networks to a relative hierarchal division of labor and some form of leadership. Duyvesteyn and Fumerton (2015) argue that the political hierarchy within terrorist organizations is best seen as a result of the group dynamics rather than a planned functional element of the organization. The recruitment process within strategies of terrorism is therefore an organizational element that is highly selective, small-scale and clandestine. In order to maintain this secrecy, terrorist organizational structures tend to be elitist and relatively closed, due to a lack of population outreach. As mentioned before, the organizational structure of terrorism is aimed to increase the intrinsic cohesion and, therefore, focuses less on coercive enforcement mechanisms towards group members.

Methodology

‘’And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested.’’