Abstract
This chapter presents an analysis of the construct of terrorism as a phenomenon with historical roots with many contestations, explanations, and understandings. Since the advent of terrorism, the term’s use shifted from the regime de la terreurs during the French revolution, to anarchist and socio-revolutionary bombers in the nineteenth century, to the Red terror, to anti-colonial struggle, then to the Palestinian struggles in the 1960s, and finally to religious fundamentalism since the 1990s, to date. These episodes and differential motives for terror activities also beckon the question around its justification. Also, the evolution of the term has brought about problems in understanding its causality and conceptualization and by implication in articulating an approach to finding a panacea for wherever and whenever it is witnessed. This chapter argues that the prism through which terrorism can be understood is highly subjective and open to different interpretations for different times and eras.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Menachem Begin, the leader of Irgun (Lehi' Zionist rival) in post-war Palestine was the first to refer to his followers as “freedom fighters” rather than terrorists against the backdrop of the naming game that characterizes the notion of terrorism. Meanwhile, the concept of freedom fighter became trendy thereby complicating the understanding of terrorism especially during the epoch referred to by Rapoport's “second-wave”.
- 2.
The use of the term crime, however, requires its own clarification as its conceptualization varies considerably across time and cultural spaces and is more often dependent on the scope of a particular legal framework. Meanwhile, Schmid’s conception of crime herein has to do with “the intentional commission of an act usually deemed socially harmful or dangerous and specifically defined, prohibited and punishable under the criminal law” (Schmid 2004, p. 179). Questions regarding the intrinsic values of an act deemed as crime by a particular state can, however, be raised concerning this definition. For instance, the distinction between ‘mala prohibita’ (wrong merely because it is prohibited by statute) and ‘mala per se’ (wrong or evil in itself’), that exists, for instance in the Roman legal traditions further complicates the understanding of terrorism as crime.
- 3.
This occurs when an act is considered ‘criminal’ but its motive or intent is deemed ‘political’ (Schmid 2004, p. 179).
- 4.
In general—academic definitions of terrorism are privileged over supposed political ones because of the tendency of the former towards value-neutrality, thereby enhancing a non-double standard justification of terrorism, if possible. However, academic definitions have quite some limitations ranging from complexity due to use of jargon to policy irreverence due to its blurring of the distinction between terrorism by state actors and terrorism by non-state actors (Onapajo and Uzodike 2012, p. 339).
- 5.
It suffices to acknowledge that the activities of the groups such as: the Hindu Thugs in South Asia (2500 years); The Jewish Zealots-Sicarit (more than 1900 years ago); Islamic Assassins about 900 years reveal, contrary to the common perception, that religious fundamentalism is hardly a modern phenomenon (Schmid 2004b). All of them are arguably precursors of some contemporary fundamentalist terrorists.
- 6.
It is arguably this perception that promoted the sixteenth century French philosopher, Blaise Pascal to say that “Men never do evil so openly and contentedly as when they do it from religious conviction”, while Karl Marx referred to terrorists as “dangerous dreamers of the absolute” (Schmid 2004b, p. 211).
- 7.
The Israeli-Palestinian long standing conflicts represent a persuasive example of the subjectivity hovering around the debates on terrorism, in terms of its moral and conceptual implications. While to outsiders both parties are committing acts of terrorism, the involved parties not only denied such allegation but also ironically blame the others for perpetuating terroristic acts against them by simply justifying their own use of violence as not terroristic (Primoratz 2004, p. ix). Interestingly, this same conflict has quite some resonance with some Christian-Muslim conflict in various parts of the globe including Nigeria, where Boko Haram have made allusion to America’s support of Israeli in marginalizing the Palestinian community (or the Muslim world) as one of their grievances against the West.
- 8.
The Just War tradition has two phases: the just ad bellum and jus in bello. The former designates the conditions under which resorting to war is justifiable while the latter focuses on the methods by which such war should be conducted. Besides the Just War theory, other perspectives on the justification or condemnation of terrorism can be gleaned from the utilitarian tradition and the so-called realist tradition (Coady 2004, p. 42).
- 9.
Given the severity of the Nazi threats during World War II, the terror Bombing of German cities has been deemed legitimate to some extent. Similarly the terroristic elimination of Hitler is applauded along the same lines. These views are anchored in the act utilitarian, which emphasizes the ‘rule of thumb’ that overrules moral constraint in certain situation where the outcome of an act generates more happiness than sorrow.
- 10.
Considered from the perspective of an attempt to address grievance and inequality Schmid noted that the weapon of terrorism is indeed a very powerful weapon for the powerless.
- 11.
This has to do mainly with fundamentalist terrorism that employ religion as its basis; for example, groups such as Boko Haram.
References
Abadie, A. (2006). Poverty, political freedom, and the roots of terrorism. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 96, 50–56.
Alex, P. S. (2004). Frameworks for conceptualising terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 16(2), 197–221.
Arowolo, D. E. (2013). Terrorism, democracy and global security. European Scientific Journal, 9(2), 100–111.
Bandyopadhyay, S., & Younas, J. (2011). Poverty, political freedom, and the roots of terrorism in developing countries: An empirical assessment. Economics Letters, 112(2), 171–175.
Baur, M. (2004). What is distinctive about terrorism, and what are the philosophical implications. In T. Shanahan (Ed.), Philosophy 9/11: Thinking about war on terrorism. Peru: Carus Publishing Company.
Bayo, O. A. (2013). The myth about terrorist: Historical materialism as a response to realist approach. International Journal of Social Science & Education 3(1).
Berrebi, C. (2003). Evidence about the link between education, poverty and terrorism among palestinians. Princeton University Industrial Relations Section Working Paper 477.
Berrebi, C. (2007). Evidence about the link between education, poverty and terrorism among palestinians. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 13(1), 2.
Blomberg, S. B., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2006). A gravity model of globalization, democracy and transnational terrorism. Non-published Research Reports, Paper 1.
Bravo, A. B. S., & Dias, C. M. M. (2006). An empirical analysis of terrorism: Deprivation, Islamism and geopolitical factors. Defence and Peace Economics, 17(4), 329–341.
Burgoon, B. (2006). On welfare and terror social welfare policies and political-economic roots of terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(2), 176–203.
Cavanaugh, W. T. (2007). Does religion cause violence? Havard Divinity Bulletin, 35(2 & 3), 1–16.
Coady, C. (1985). The morality of terrorism. Philosophy, 60(231), 47–69.
Coady, C. (2004a). Terrorism, morality, and supreme emergency. Ethics, 114(4), 772–789.
Coady, C. (2004b). Terrorism and innocence. The Journal of Ethics, 8(1), 37–58.
Desbruslais, C. (2009). Postmodernism: Guidelines for an optional course. Pune: Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth.
Dreher, A., & Gassebner, M. (2008). Does political proximity to the us cause terror? Economics Letters, 99(1), 27–29.
Garrison, A. H. (2004). Defining terrorism: Philosophy of the bomb, propaganda by deed and change through fear and violence. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(3), 259–279.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Jackson, R., & Sinclair, S. J. (2012). Contemporary debating on terrorism. New York: Routledge Chapman & Hall.
Johnson, C. A. (2004). The sorrows of empire: militarism, secrecy, and the end of the republic. London: Verso.
Jollimore, T. (2007). Terrorism, war, and the killing of the innocent. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 10(4), 353–372.
Kinyon, R. (2004). Osama bin-laden: Legitimate within Islamic legal thought? Al Nakhlah, 4, 1–5.
Kraemer, E. (2004). A philosopher looks at terrorism: Evil, religion, and world ethics. In A. A. Nyatepe-Coo & D. Zeisler-Vralsted (Eds.), Understanding terrorism threats in an uncertain world (pp. 113–131). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Krueger, A. B. (2007). What makes a terrorist: Economics and the root of terrorism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Krueger, A. B., & Maleckova, J. (2002). Does poverty cause terrorism? The New Republic, 226(24), 27–33.
Lai, B. (2007). Draining the swamp: An empirical examination of the production of international terrorism. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 24(4), 297–310.
Li, Q., & Schaub, D. (2004). Economic globalization and transnational terrorism: A pooled time-series analysis. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(2), 230–258.
Lizardo, O. (2008). Defining and theorizing terrorism: A global actor-centered approach. Journal of World-Systems Research, XIV(2), 91–118.
Moten, A. R. (2010). Understanding terrorism: Contested concept, conflicting perspectives and shattering consequences. Intellectual Discourse, 18(1), 35–63.
Nagel, J. (1974). Inequality and discontent: A nonlinear hypothesis. World Politics, 26(04), 453–472.
O’Neill, W. (2002a). Concept paper-beyond the slogans: How can the un respond to terrorism? Responding to terrorism: What role for the United Nations? (pp. 25–26). New York: International Peace Academy.
O’Neill, W. (2002b). Conference report. Responding to terrorism: What role for the United Nations? Conference organized by the International Peace Academy (pp. 5–17). New York: International Peace Academy.
Olaniyan, A., & Asuelime, L. (2014). Boko haram insurgency and the widening of cleavages in Nigeria. African Security, 7(2), 91–109.
Onapajo, H., & Uzodike, U. O. (2012). Boko haram terrorism in Nigeria. African Security Review, 21(3), 24–39.
Ozsoy, I. (2007). Terrorism: A Socio-Economic Analysis. In O. Nikbay, et al. (Eds.), understanding and responding to the terrorism phenomenon: A multi-dimensional perspective (pp. 55–70). Amsterdam: Ios Press Inc.
Piazza, J. A. (2006). Rooted in poverty?: Terrorism, poor economic development, and social cleavages 1. Terrorism and Political Violence, 18(1), 159–177.
Piazza, J. A. (2011). Poverty, minority economic discrimination, and domestic terrorism. Journal of Peace Research, 48(3), 339–353.
Primoratz, I. (1990). What is terrorism? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 7(2), 129–138.
Primoratz, I. (2004). Terrorism: The philosophical issues. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rapoport, D. C. (2004). Attacking terrorism: Elements of a grand strategy. In A. K. Cronin et al. (Eds.) Attacking terrorism: Elements of a grand strategy. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Richardson, C. (2011). Relative deprivation theory in terrorism: A study of higher education and unemployment as predictors of terrorism. Unpublished Thesis (Honors), New York University.
Ross, J. I. (1993). Structural causes of oppositional political terrorism: Towards a causal model. Journal of Peace Research, 30(3), 317–329.
Schmid, A. P., & Jongman, A. J. (2005). Political terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories, and literature. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Schmid, A. (2004a). Terrorism-the definitional problem. Case western reserve journal of international law, 36(2, 3), 375–420.
Schmid, A. P. (2004b). Frameworks for conceptualising terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 16(2), 197–221.
Schwenkenbecher, A. (2012). Terrorism: A philosophical enquiry. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sterba, J. P., & French, S. E. (2003). Terrorism and international justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Teichman, J. (1989). How to define terrorism. Philosophy, 64(250), 505–517.
Weinberg, L. (2005). Global terrorism: A beginer’s guide. Oxford: Oneworld Publication.
Weinberg, L., et al. (2004). The challenges of conceptualizing terrorism. Terrorism and Policical Violence, 16(4), 777–794.
Wight, C. (2009). Theorizing terrorism: The state, structure and history. International Relations, 23, 99–106.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
David, O.J., Asuelime, L.E., Onapajo, H. (2015). Understanding the Changing Context for Terrorism. In: Boko Haram. SpringerBriefs in Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21230-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21230-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21229-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21230-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)